DEPARTMENT 82 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Hon. Curtis Kin The clerk for Department 82 may be reached at (213) 893-0530.
Case Number: 20STCP03035 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: 82
|
BALLONA WETLANDS LAND TRUST,
|
Petitioner,
|
|
|
|
|
vs.
|
|
Case No. 20STCP03035
[TENTATIVE] RULING ON MOTION FOR AWARD OF
ATTORNEY FEES
Dept. 82 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin)
|
|
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION,
|
Respondent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petitioner
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust moves for an award of attorney fees in the amount
of $344,160.25.
I. Background
On
October 13, 2022, petitioner Ballona Wetlands Land Trust filed the operative
verified first amended verified petition for writ of mandate. On September 7,
2023, the hearing on the petition took place, after which the Court took the
matter under submission. On September 8, 2023, the Court granted the petition.
On
November 3, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of petitioner. On
November 7, 2023, the Court issued a writ of mandate directing respondent
California Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”) to make a compatibility
determination pursuant to Section 630 of Title 14 of the Cal. Code of
Regulations as to whether the parking lots in Area A and baseball fields in
Area C of the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve are compatible with the
purpose of the Reserve. (See 14 C.C.R. § 630(a) [“Visitor uses are dependent
upon the provisions of applicable laws and upon a determination by the
commission that opening an area to such visitor use is compatible with the
purposes of the property”].)
II. Analysis
A.
Entitlement
to Fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5
Petitioner seeks an award of attorney fees pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’
fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action
which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the
public interest….” (CCP § 1021.5.) “[E]ligibility for section 1021.5 attorney
fees is established when ‘(1) plaintiffs’ action “has resulted in the enforcement
of an important right affecting the public interest,” (2) “a significant
benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary has been conferred on the general
public or a large class of persons” and (3) “the necessity and financial burden
of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate.”’” (Conservatorship
of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1214.)
1.
Successful Party
A party “may be
considered successful if they succeed on any significant issue in the
litigation that achieves some of the benefit they sought in bringing suit.” (Ebbetts
Pass Forest Watch v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2010)
187 Cal.App.4th 376, 382.) In determining whether the issue upon which a party
prevailed is significant, “the court must critically analyze the surrounding
circumstances of the litigation and pragmatically assess the gains achieved by
the action.” (Ibid.)
Here, petitioner
succeeded in obtaining a writ directing the Commission to make an express and
affirmative determination regarding whether parking lots and a little league
field located on the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve is compatible with the
purpose of the Reserve. (11/7/23 Writ of Mandate; compare FAP Prayer for
Relief at (iii).) Because petitioner prevailed on a significant issue
in the litigation, petitioner is the successful party under section 1021.5. The
Commission does not argue otherwise.
2.
Enforcement of Important
Right Affecting the Public Interest
“In assessing whether an
action has enforced an important right, courts should generally realistically
assess the significance of that right in terms of its relationship to the
achievement of fundamental legislative goals. As to the benefit, it may be conceptual
or doctrinal and need not be actual and concrete; further, the effectuation of
a statutory or constitutional purpose may be sufficient ... [However,] [t]he
benefit must inure primarily to the public. Thus, the statute directs the
judiciary to exercise judgment in attempting to ascertain the ‘strength’ or
‘societal importance’ of the right involved.” (Sandlin v. McLaughlin
(2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 805, 829, quoting Choi v. Orange County Great Park
Corp. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 524, 531, internal quotations and citations
omitted.)
The subject of the instant proceeding, the Ballona
Wetlands Ecological Reserve, is “land or land and water areas…that are to be
preserved in a natural condition, or which are to be provided some level of
protection as determined by the commission, for the benefit of the general
public to observe native flora and fauna and for scientific study or research.”
(Fish & G. Code § 1584; 14 C.C.R. § 630(b)(10) [Ballona Wetlands designated
as ecological reserve by Commission].) Moreover, it is undisputed that the State
of California purchased the Reserve with $139 million in public bond funds.
(Lamb Decl. ¶ 5.) Requiring the Commission to make a compatibility
determination concerning potentially incompatible uses in the Reserve, which
could potentially result in restoration of the land, furthers the significant
policy set forth in Fish and Game Code § 1584. (14 C.C.R. § 630(h)(3)
[providing that Commission may allow recreation use unless it determines that
restoration or other uses are more appropriate]; La Mirada Avenue
Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22
Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158 [“Where, as here, the nonpecuniary benefit to the public
is the proper enforcement of the law, the successful party must show that the
law being enforced furthers a significant policy”].)
Citing Center for Biological Diversity v.
California Fish & Game Com. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 128 and Karuk
Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd.,
North Coast Region (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 330, respondent contends that the
writ of mandate does not compel any finding that the parking lots and baseball
field are incompatible with the Reserve. (Opp. at 9:16-10:12.) Both cases are
distinguishable. The petitioners in those cases only received remands for new
hearings, which was not the relief they sought.
In Center for Biological Diversity, all the
petitioner obtained was a “limited ‘do-over’”: “The trial court did not decide
that the Commission had actually used the wrong standard, only that there was
an appreciable risk that it may have erroneously evaluated the petition…. [T]he
court did not accede to the Center's prayer that its petition to the Commission
deserved to prevail as a matter of law, i.e., by overturning the Commission's
finding that the Center had not produced sufficient evidence. This was the
Center's ‘strategic objective.’… [¶] When the Commission reviewed the petition
for the second time, it reached the same conclusion as it had before.” (Center
for Biological Diversity, 195 Cal.App.4th at 140-141.)
In Karuk, the trial court remanded a matter
to the agency to provide an “augmented explanation” of its decision that a
state law was preempted by federal law. (Karuk, 183 Cal.App.4th at 364,
369.) However, the plaintiffs did not seek such relief: “The only
relief/achievement/success from this litigation was the remand to the Board.
However…it certainly was not sought by plaintiffs, but was engineered by the
trial court for its own reasons. Nowhere in plaintiffs’ petition is there a
hint that they wanted a fuller explanation from the Board supporting its
conclusion that it was powerless against the [Federal Power Act].” (Id.
at 366.) “Providing that augmented explanation does not, as the trial court
concluded, qualify as a ‘significant benefit’ worth $138,000 to the people of
California.” (Id. at 369.)
Contrary to Center for Biological Diversity
and Karuk, petitioner’s central contention in the operative First
Amended Petition was that respondent had not complied with its regulatory
obligation to make a compatibility determination. (FAP ¶¶ 1, 22, 30, 34, 35,
39, 46, 54, 55, 57.) Petitioner’s prayer for relief seeks such a determination.
(FAP Prayer for Relief at (iii).) Accordingly, petitioner’s enforcement of 14
C.C.R. § 630(a) affects an important right, specifically the public’s right to
have the Commission conduct itself in a manner that makes sure the biological
resources in and around the publicly funded Reserve are protected..
3.
Significant Benefit
Conferred on General Public or Large Class of Persons
“Whether a successful
party’s lawsuit confers a ‘significant benefit’ on the general public or a
large class of persons is a function of (1) ‘the significance of the benefit,’
and (2) ‘the size of the class receiving [the] benefit.’ [Citation.] In evaluating
these factors, courts are to ‘realistic[ally] assess[ ]’ the lawsuit’s ‘gains’
‘in light of all the pertinent circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (La Mirada, 22
Cal.App.5th at 1158.) “A benefit need not be monetary to be significant. (§
1021.5 [defining “a significant benefit” as either “pecuniary or
nonpecuinary”].) Where, as here, the nonpecuniary benefit to the public is the
proper enforcement of the law, the successful party must show that the law
being enforced furthers a significant policy. [Citation.]” (La Mirada,
22 Cal.App.5th at 1158.)
“[T]he significant
benefit requirement of section 1021.5 requires more than a mere statutory
violation.” (Burgess v. Coronado Unified School District (2020) 59
Cal.App.5th 1, 9.) However, a significant benefit can be found “simply from the
effectuation of a fundamental constitutional or statutory policy” “from a
realistic assessment, in light of all the pertinent circumstances, of the gains
which have resulted in a particular case.” (Woodland Hills Residents Assn.,
Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 939-40.)
For the reasons stated
above with respect to enforcement of an important right, petitioner
demonstrates that a significant benefit was conferred on the general public. (La
Mirada, 22 Cal.App.5th at 1158 [finding when proper enforcement of law is
the public benefit, “the significant benefit and important right requirements
of section 1021.5 to some extent dovetail”].) The policy of protecting the
Reserve for the benefit of the general public is set forth in Fish
and Game Code § 1584. By enforcing 14 C.C.R. § 630(a), petitioner effectuated
regulatory policy by ensuring that the Reserve is being used for purposes that
are compatible with the purpose of the Reserve. (See Health Net of
California, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th
224, 235 [treating regulatory violation as violation of statute because
“regulations, by definition, are rules, orders, and standards of general
application that ‘implement, interpret, or make specific’ the statutory law”].)
4.
Necessity and Financial
Burden of Private Enforcement
“[T]he necessity and
financial burden requirement really examines two issues: whether private
enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private
enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party’s attorneys.” (Whitley,
50 Cal.4th at 1214.)
Private enforcement was
necessary in this case because the petitioner brought the action against the
government agency responsible for making a compatibility determination
regarding the parking lots and baseball field at the Reserve. (See Woodland
Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 941
[“Inasmuch as the present action proceeded against the only governmental
agencies that bear responsibility for the subdivision approval process, the
necessity of private, as compared to public, enforcement becomes clear”].)
Further, the financial burden of private enforcement warrants a fee award here,
as petitioner did not obtain any financial relief from the judgment. (See
Whitley, 50 Cal.4th at 1217 [“As a logical matter, a strong nonfinancial
motivation does not change or alleviate the ‘financial burden’ that a litigant
bears”].)
Respondents do not argue
that private enforcement by petitioner was unnecessary or did not pose a
financial burden. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the necessity
and financial burden of private enforcement by petitioner warrants a fee award
under CCP § 1021.5.
B.
Reasonableness
of Fees Requested
Petitioner seeks $344,160.25
in fees, based on the sum of the asserted lodestar of $193,293.50, application
of a 1.5 multiplier resulting in $96,646.75, and $54,220.00 for preparation of
the fee motion.
1.
The Lodestar Amount
With respect to the fees
incurred in obtaining a favorable judgment, petitioner seeks a total of $193,293.50,
calculated as follows:
|
ATTORNEY
|
HOURS
|
RATE
|
TOTAL
|
|
Venskus & Associates, A.P.C.
|
|
|
|
|
Sabrina Venskus
|
14.11
|
$1000/hour
|
$14,110.00
|
|
Jason Sanders
|
9.12
|
$850/hour
|
$7,752.00
|
|
Rachael Andrews
|
3.71
|
$650/hour
|
$2,411.50
|
|
Paralegal
|
0.7
|
$200/hour
|
$140.00
|
|
SUBTOTAL (Venskus):
|
$24,413.50
|
|
Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell M. Tsai
|
43.9
|
$800/hour
|
$35,120.00
|
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
113.8
|
$650/hour
|
$73,970.00
|
|
Jason Cohen
|
0.7
|
$550/hour
|
$385.00
|
|
Talia Nimmer
|
102.5
|
$450/hour
|
$46,125.00
|
|
Mary Linares
|
1.5
|
$400/hour
|
$600.00
|
|
Paralegal
|
63.4
|
$200/hour
|
$12,680.00
|
|
SUBTOTAL (Tsai):
|
$168,880.00
|
|
|
|
|
$193,293.50
|
The Court finds the
asserted hourly rates are reasonable, and respondent does not contend
otherwise.
The Court finds that the $24,413.50
in fees claimed by Venskus & Associates, A.P.C. are excessive. “Entitlement
to fees under [section] 1021.5 is based on the impact of the case as a whole.”
(Karuk, quoting Punsly v. Ho (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 102, 114, cleaned
up.) Considering that the bulk of the work was performed by the Mitchell M.
Tsai Law Firm, the Venskus firm does not make a sufficient showing that their
work was instrumental in obtaining the writ relief sought by petitioner. Attorney
Venskus states in a conclusory manner that the Venskus firm “contributed to the
successful outcome of the litigation by formulating legal strategies, drafting
and serving the initial petition, conducting legal research, and appearing at hearings.”
(Venskus Decl. ¶ 9.) Aside from drafting the initial writ petition, serving the
petition, and providing notice to the Attorney General, the Venskus firm did
not impact the case as a whole. The Court awards the Venskus firm fees for 6
hours for drafting the petition, 0.2 hours for serving the petition, and 0.2
hours for drafting notice to the Attorney General. Based on a blended rate of $675.00
per hour (($1000 Venskus + $850 Sanders + $650 Andrews + $200 paralegal) ÷ 4 =
$675 per hour), the Venskus firm is awarded fees in the amount of $4,320.00
($675 x 6.4 hours).
With respect to the fees
claimed by attorneys from the Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm, the Court finds that
certain fees were excessive. With
counsel’s experience as reflected in the relatively high billing rates, counsel
should have spent less time performing the tasks set forth in the time records. Further, the reductions account for inefficiencies
and waste resulting from two or more attorneys unnecessarily working on the
same briefing and tasks.
The Court reduces the billing entries as reflected
in the following table:
|
Date
|
Attorney/ Paralegal
|
Description
|
Hourly Rate
|
Claimed Hours
|
Reduced Fees
|
Difference
|
Court Awarded Fees
|
|
4/19/22
|
Mary Linares
|
Review Email from M. Tsai re.
Petition for Writ of Mandate
|
$400
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$80
|
|
4/19/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing case deadlines. Assigning
follow-up tasks to Associates Naira Soghbatyan,
Associate Mary Linare and support staff.
|
$800
|
0.4
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
$240
|
|
4/19/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing pleadings in case to
determine scope of record. Drafting e-mail to client, Associates Naira
Soghbatyan and Mary Linares, and drafting e-mail to client.
|
$800
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
$240
|
|
4/19/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Call with Sabrina, Mitch, Mary and
client.
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$65
|
|
4/22/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Downloading files from Westlaw and
renaming them for case set up.
|
$200
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
4/22/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Finishing downloading files from
Westlaw, creating a list of files that I'm unable to
open for attorney Mitchell Tsai.
|
$200
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
0.0
|
$140
|
|
4/22/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Calendaring deadlines based upon
most recent minute order and stipulation.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
4/22/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Drafting notice of appearance,
troubleshooting with format, will need to be revised.
|
$200
|
1.2
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
4/22/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Drafting email for attorneys Tsai,
Linares and Soghyaban and staff, indicating issues with downloading files
from Westlaw.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
4/26/22
|
Mary Linares
|
Email W. Lamb re. Additional Files
and Meeting Video
|
$400
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
5/2/22
|
Mary Linares
|
Remote Meeting with Client, M. Tsai
re. Grassroots Coalition; Administrative Record; Settlement; Questions of Law
|
$400
|
1
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
$200
|
|
5/2/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Attending strategy meeting with
client.
|
$800
|
1
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
$400
|
|
5/3/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Downloading remainder of files into
Westlaw folder.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
5/6/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Revising draft of Notice of
Appearance for attorney Mitchell Tsai to review, sending copy of draft
|
$200
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$120
|
|
5/12/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Setting alert for Westlaw docket
tracking.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
5/12/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Searching for service list,
preparing and finalizing POS, finalizing notice of appearance,
troubleshooting OneLegal, e-filing and e-serving notice of appearance.
|
$200
|
1.2
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
5/16/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Meeting with client regarding case
strategy.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$80
|
|
5/25/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Preparing ex parte motion to
continue trial. E-mail to Associate Naira Soghbatyan and support staff.
|
$800
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
5/25/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Email to Mr. Tsai.
|
$650
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$130
|
|
5/26/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Reviewing emails, outgoing call to
department 82 with inquiry regarding ex-parte motion availability.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
5/26/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Prepared the Ex Parte Application
and Stipulation and sent an email re same to Mr. Tsai and others.
|
$650
|
4
|
3
|
1.0
|
$1,950
|
|
5/27/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Outgoing calls to clerk this
morning regarding trial continuance.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
5/27/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Outgoing call to department 82 with
inquiry, reviewing files containing formatting
issues.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
5/27/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Incoming call from attorney Naira
S. to discuss details about case.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
5/27/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Revising copy of stipulation and
order with correct formatting, sending copy to
attorneys Mitchell Tsai and Naira S.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
5/27/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing draft
stipulation. E-mail to opposing counsel.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
5/27/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Revised the Stipulation based on
communications with the City Clerk; emailed staff and Mr. Tsai about the
stipulation.
|
$650
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$260
|
|
5/31/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Reviewing emails, preparing
stipulation and order, troubleshooting Adobe Acrobat DC, sending finalized
copy to attorneys Mitchell Tsai and Naira S. for review.
|
$200
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
6/3/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Finalizing stipulation and order
for e-filing, e-filing and e-serving with OneLegal, emailing attorneys
Mitchell Tsai and Naira S. with confirmation.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
6/3/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Updating case file information re
e-filing via OneLegal.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
6/6/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Downloading filing approval documents
from One Legal, saving copy into case file,
messaging attorney Mitchell Tsai with inquiry.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
6/6/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Emailing conformed copy of stip and
order to attorney Sabrina V. and client.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
6/7/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Updating case file information,
forwarding e-filing receipt email from One Legal to client and attorneys,
replying to attorney Mitchell Tsai's email.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
6/7/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Compressing One Legal e-filling
confirmation documents into Zip File for file sharing
with paralegal Julie Malone.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
6/10/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Saving minute order to case file
and sending copy to attorneys Mitch and Tsai.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
6/10/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing trial date
continuance stipulation. E-mail to opposing
counsel. E-mail to client.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$80
|
|
6/10/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Revised the stipulation, reviewed
the Court's minute order, and sent the redraft to Mr. Tsai for review.
|
$650
|
2
|
0.5
|
1.5
|
$325
|
|
6/14/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Drafting and editing Appellant's
Opening Brief.
|
$800
|
2
|
1
|
1.0
|
$800
|
|
6/14/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call and follow-up e-mail
with client regarding denial of stipulation.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
6/15/22
|
Rebekah Youngblood
|
Process Superior Court of
California Court Order.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
6/21/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Called the Dep't 82 clerk re ex
parte; communicated with Mr. Tsai re ex parte; emailed the client with an
update.
|
$650
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$65
|
|
6/24/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on the ex parte motion,
exhibits, and submitted those to Mr. Tsai for review.
|
$650
|
9
|
4.5
|
4.5
|
$2,925
|
|
6/27/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on the ex parte application.
|
$650
|
4.3
|
0
|
4.3
|
$0
|
|
6/27/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on the ex parte application.
|
$650
|
1.6
|
0
|
1.6
|
$0
|
|
6/28/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Cleaned up the ex parte and re-sent
it to client and Mr. Tsai for review.
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$130
|
|
6/28/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on and revised the Ex Parte
motion and declarations, in light of Sabrina's email.
|
$650
|
2
|
0
|
2.0
|
$0
|
|
6/28/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the Client's signed
declaration; emailed the client thereafter; messaged Mr. Tsai about the
future process of filing the ex parte.
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$130
|
|
6/29/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Preparing Ex-Parte Application and
sending a copy to attorneys Mitchell Tsai and Naira S. for review.
|
$200
|
1.4
|
1.4
|
0.0
|
$280
|
|
6/29/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Revising Ex-Parte application,
incoming call from attorney Naira S.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
6/29/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Revising Ex-Parte with correct
exhibit markers and sending to attorney Mitchell Tsai for final approval.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0
|
0.1
|
$0
|
|
6/29/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Making more revisions to Ex-Parte
per attorney Naira S.'s instructions, incoming call from attorney Naira. S.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0
|
0.3
|
$0
|
|
6/29/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
E-filing, e-serving, and e-copying
Ex-Parte Application.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
$40
|
|
6/29/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Drafting and editing ex parte
motion. E-mail to support staff requesting that it get filed.
|
$800
|
2
|
1
|
1.0
|
$800
|
|
6/29/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Staff communications re filing of
documents; final review and corrections of documents to be filed and their format;
email of filed documents to opposing
counsel.
|
$650
|
0.7
|
0.4
|
0.3
|
$260
|
|
6/30/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Setting up appearances for the
Ex-Parte via CourtConnect for the client and attorneys.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
7/5/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Creating calendar entry for
ex-parte hearing with login details, messaging attorney Mitchell Tsai.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
7/5/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Calling the clerk with inquiry,
messaging with attorneys Mitchell Tsai and Naira S., drafting reminder email
to client.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
$40
|
|
7/5/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Incoming call from Walter Lamb,
messaging with attorney Mitchell Tsai re ex-parte hearing, searching for
tentative ruling online.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
7/5/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Preparing for ex parte hearing.
|
$800
|
0.7
|
0.5
|
0.2
|
$400
|
|
7/6/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Reviewing case file folders,
calendaring new entries related to the new trial date, messaging and emailing
with attorney Mitchell Tsai, updating case file information with attorney
notes, deleting prior calendar entries.
|
$200
|
0.6
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
$80
|
|
7/6/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Preparing notice of trial
continuance for e-filling and sending to attorney Naira S. for review.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
$60
|
|
7/6/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
E-filing, e-serving, e-copying
notice of trial continuance, saving copies to case file.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$40
|
|
7/6/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Appearing for and arguing hearing
on ex parte motion to continue trial.
|
$800
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$400
|
|
7/6/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Appeared for ex parte application.
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$65
|
|
7/6/22
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Drafted and prepared a Notice of
Continuance for filing.
|
$650
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
$195
|
|
8/31/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing case file and petitions
|
$450
|
1.2
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
$540
|
|
9/22/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Meeting with Associate Talia
Nimmer. Follow-up e-mail to client.
|
$800
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
9/22/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing amending the complaint
and necessary records to do so with Mitch
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/22/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting PRA request re Project
funding documents and sending to Mitch for review
|
$450
|
0.8
|
0.7
|
0.1
|
$315
|
|
9/23/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Sending email to Walter re sending
out new PRA request for grant documents
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/28/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Conference call with client and
Associate Talia Nimmer
|
$800
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$320
|
|
10/7/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Starting reviewing, reformatting,
and revising FAP
|
$450
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
0.0
|
$315
|
|
10/11/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Finished reviewing and revising
First Amended Petition and sending to Mitch for review
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
10/12/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Finalizing First Amended Petition
and sending to Maria for filing and serving
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
10/13/22
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Incoming call from paralegal Steven
Thong to discuss FAP filing.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
$20
|
|
10/13/22
|
Steven Thong
|
Phone call with Maria to discuss
filing procedures
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$20
|
|
10/13/22
|
Steven Thong
|
Preparation of stamp through
Stamp.com and envelope for USPS filing.
|
$200
|
0.6
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
$60
|
|
10/13/22
|
Steven Thong
|
Phone call with Talia regarding
procedures for filing amended petition. Email out to client for approval of
amended petition.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
$60
|
|
10/13/22
|
Steven Thong
|
E-file Amended Petition through one
legal and mail out hard copies to Defendant
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
$60
|
|
10/13/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising FAP and communicating with
Steven re serving and filing
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
10/14/22
|
Steven Thong
|
Download conformed copies from One
Legal and submit to client.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
10/18/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Meeting with client regarding case
management and case strateyg.
|
$800
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
$640
|
|
10/18/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Phone call with Mitch, Mary, and
Walter re next steps
|
$450
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
$360
|
|
10/18/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Sending emails to opposing and co
counsel re next steps
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
10/19/22
|
Mary Linares
|
Review Email from T. Nimmer,
[redacted]
|
$400
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
10/19/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Determining [redacted] emailing
Mary re document retrieval; emailing Walter re [redacted]
|
$450
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
$360
|
|
10/20/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Preparing draft stipulation re
preparation of administrative record
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
$135
|
|
11/4/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing proposed draft
stipulation. E-mail to Associate Talia Nimmer with proposed changes.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$80
|
|
11/4/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with Associate Talia
NImmer discussing case management stipulation.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
11/4/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing AR stipulation with
Mitch and revising to include briefing schedule
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
$180
|
|
11/6/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing draft
stipulation.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
11/14/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Emailing Gary re setting up meeting
to discuss AR
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/15/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Creating and circulating video
conference link to Gary Tavetian and Mitch and sending client update email
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$90
|
|
11/21/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Meeting with opposing counsel, Gary
Tevetian, regarding case management.
|
$800
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$480
|
|
11/22/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Meeting with Gary re AR
stipulations and opening brief arguments and sending Mitch summarizing email
|
$450
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
0.0
|
$315
|
|
11/22/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Started drafting opening brief
|
$450
|
1.4
|
1.4
|
0.0
|
$630
|
|
11/23/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing draft e-mail from Talia
Nimmer to be sent to opposing counsel Gary Tevetian.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
11/23/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing email to Gary Tavetian
with Mitch and emailing Gary re stipulating to authenticity of the EIRs and
modified briefing schedule
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$90
|
|
11/30/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with opposing counsel
and Associate Talia Nimmer discussing case management.
|
$800
|
0.5
|
0.4
|
0.1
|
$320
|
|
12/6/22
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Emailing Walter re [redacted]
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$270
|
|
12/20/22
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing e-mail from opposing
counsel Gary Tevetian. E-mail to Associate Talia Nimmer discussing potential
response.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
1/3/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing draft
stipulation. E-mail to Associate Talia Nimmer requesting revisions.
|
$800
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
1/3/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting stipulation to continue
trial
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
$90
|
|
1/3/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising stipulation to continue
trial and sending to Gary Tavetian for review
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
$45
|
|
1/5/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising and resending stipulation
to continue trial and draft administrative record index in accordance with
Gary Tavetian's requests and filing signed stipulation
|
$450
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
$360
|
|
1/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Downloading and saving Court's
minute order, updating calendar dates, emailing Water and Gary re trial
continuance, and responding to Walter email re uncertified transcripts
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$270
|
|
1/10/23
|
Hind Baki
|
Review and file emails about this
case
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
1/17/23
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Reviewing email from attorney,
processing conformed documents from Court, reviewing case file, creating
calendar entry for initial trial date.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
1/17/23
|
Maria Sarmiento
|
Updating case file information with
latest stipulation and order to continue trial filing action from 1/5/2023.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
1/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing transcript verification
with Mitch and Gary Tavetian
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
1/24/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with client regarding
record certification. Follow-up e-mail to Associate Talia Nimmer regarding
how to move forward on certified transcripts.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
1/24/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing how to proceed with
Mitch re transcripts, calling Huntington court reporters for an updated
quote, and emailing Walter latest status
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$90
|
|
2/7/23
|
Jason Cohen
|
Attention to case status and
multiple correspondences with M. Tsai, T. Nimmer, and opposing counsel re:
future actions for purpose of case monitoring and maintenance
|
$550
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$220
|
|
2/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing case status and tasks in
prep for 2/7 meeting with Mitch Tsai and Jason Cohen and discussing at
meeting
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
2/8/23
|
Jason Cohen
|
Attention to case status update
from opposing counsel
|
$550
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$55
|
|
3/2/23
|
Jason Cohen
|
Attention to updates re:
stipulation
|
$550
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$110
|
|
3/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing March 2 draft record
email to Gary Tavetian w/Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
3/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Directing Drew Vandermale to make
record link accessible to fish and game commission staff and confirming
accessibility with Gary Tavetian
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
3/20/23
|
Hind Baki
|
Review and file emails about this
case
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
3/27/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing substitution
of attorney.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
3/27/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing Motion to Compel hearing
with Mitch Tsai and emailing client status update
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
$45
|
|
3/27/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Trying to change motion to compel
certification reservation on court reservation system
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$45
|
|
3/28/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with Associate Talia
Nimmer discussing case strategy around Motion to Compel Certification of the
Administrative Record.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
3/28/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Calling Court clerk re motion to
compel reservation date
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$45
|
|
3/29/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing case strategy regarding
administrative record certification issue. Drafting e-mail to client
responding to question around Motion to Compel certification of the record.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$80
|
|
3/29/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing draft e-mail to opposing
counsel drafted by Associate Talia Nimmer regarding motion to compel and
administrative record certification deadline.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
3/29/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Redo share drive and submit to
Michael and Gary updated Administrative Records
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
3/29/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing shareable administrative
record link with Steven Thong and emailing Walter Lamb re Motion to Compel certification
date and deadlines
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
3/29/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing with Mitch Tsai and
drafting/sending email to Gary Tavetian re stipulation to certify record or
motion to compel certification
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
$135
|
|
3/30/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Drafting and editing stipulation.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
3/30/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Following up with Gary and Michael
for confirmation of received shared drive.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
3/30/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing past emails, creating
timeline of events, and drafting/sending stipulation re certification of
administrative record to Gary Tavetian to sign
|
$450
|
0.8
|
0.6
|
0.2
|
$270
|
|
3/31/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Drafting and editing stipulation
regarding administrative record certification.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
3/31/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing Gary Tavetian's 3/30
email with Mitch Tsai and revising, resending, & filing stipulation re
certification of administrative record
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
$180
|
|
4/3/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
canceling motion to compel
certification of administrative record hearing and removing associated
deadlines from firm calendar
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
$45
|
|
4/4/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Sending client status update email
re administrative record certification stipulation
|
$450
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$45
|
|
4/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Downloading and saving signed
stipulation/order re administrative record certification
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
4/11/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing filing of administrative
record with Mitch Tsai and emailing Gary Tavetian re filing record
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
4/14/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Started drafting opening brief
outline
|
$450
|
1.2
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
$540
|
|
4/17/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Finished drafting Opening Brief
Outline
|
$450
|
3.6
|
1
|
2.6
|
$450
|
|
4/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Sending Gary Tavetian follow up
email re administrative record certification filing
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
4/20/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed Talia's outline, the
petition, and did some research into the codes to supplement the outline.
|
$650
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
1.0
|
$975
|
|
4/20/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the opening brief outline;
supplemented it and sent back to the team.
|
$650
|
1
|
1
|
0.0
|
$650
|
|
4/20/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing Opening Brief outline
with Naira Soghbatyan and reviewing Naira's redlines
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
$180
|
|
4/27/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process Notice of Lodgment and
Certification.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
4/27/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Notice of administrative
record certification and notice of lodging record and directing Steven thong
to save files to case folder
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
5/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting Opening Brief
|
$450
|
3.4
|
2
|
1.4
|
$900
|
|
5/10/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Continued drafting opening brief
|
$450
|
1.6
|
1
|
0.6
|
$450
|
|
5/12/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting opening brief
|
$450
|
2.4
|
1.7
|
0.7
|
$765
|
|
5/15/23
|
Drew VanderMale
|
Reviewing meeting videos to
pinpoint the timeframe for relevant statements.
|
$200
|
1.3
|
1.3
|
0.0
|
$260
|
|
5/15/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Finished drafting opening brief and
sending to Naira Soghbatyan for review
|
$450
|
2.3
|
1.8
|
0.5
|
$810
|
|
5/15/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing video timeframe review
with Drew Vandermale and inputting relevant timeframes into Opening Brief
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
5/16/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review Case Reassignment, draft
Notice of Case reassignment & Proof of Service for Attorney review.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
5/17/23
|
Drew VanderMale
|
Print and mail Notice of Case
Reassignment.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
5/17/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with client regarding
case strategy and upcoming briefing deadlines.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
5/17/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Extract and share Administrative
Records to Walter.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
5/17/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Finalize and efile Notice of Case
Reassignment.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$40
|
|
5/17/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising opening brief outline and
sending to client for review
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
5/17/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting declaration in support of
opening brief
|
$450
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
$360
|
|
5/18/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed Talia's draft.
|
$650
|
1.2
|
0.7
|
0.5
|
$455
|
|
5/18/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on the review of Talia's
draft OB.
|
$650
|
2.8
|
2
|
0.8
|
$1,300
|
|
5/18/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on the OB; emailed client.
|
$650
|
0.8
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
$260
|
|
5/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing opening brief with Naira
Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
5/19/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on Talia's opening brief
draft; emailed Mitch and Talia a copy thereof.
|
$650
|
5.8
|
3
|
2.8
|
$1,950
|
|
5/22/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing draft Opening Brief.
|
$800
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
$640
|
|
5/22/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on the opening brief and
incorporated new evidence from Walter's email re August 4, 2022; emailed same
to Talia and Mitch.
|
$650
|
1
|
0.6
|
0.4
|
$390
|
|
5/22/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review and discuss Bates Stamping
for RJN Exhibit.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
5/22/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process conformed Notice of Case
Reassignment.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
5/22/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Naira Soghbatyan's
opening brief redlines, revising, and sending Mitch Tsai most recent draft
for review
|
$450
|
1.7
|
1
|
0.7
|
$450
|
|
5/22/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing bates stamping EIR with
Naira Soghbatyan and Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
5/23/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising request for judicial
notice in support of opening brief
|
$450
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
0.0
|
$405
|
|
5/24/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Drafting and editing opening brief.
|
$800
|
2.3
|
1.5
|
0.8
|
$1,200
|
|
5/24/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Mitch Tsai's redlines to
opening brief, revising, amending request for judicial notice, and sending
revised versions for review
|
$450
|
2.4
|
1.6
|
0.8
|
$720
|
|
5/25/23
|
Drew VanderMale
|
OCR opening brief PDF RJN Exh.2.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
5/25/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Drafting and editing opening brief.
|
$800
|
1.6
|
1
|
0.6
|
$800
|
|
5/25/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the brief.
|
$650
|
1.6
|
1
|
0.6
|
$650
|
|
5/25/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing request for judicial
notice in support of opening brief with Naira
Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
5/26/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the RJN in support of the
petition.
|
$650
|
1.1
|
0.5
|
0.6
|
$325
|
|
5/26/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Perform Bates Stamping on RJN
Exhibit 1, 2, and 3 for Talia.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
5/26/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Mitch Tsai's redlines to opening
brief, discussing bates stamping request for judicial notice exhibits with
Steven Thong, revising/updating brief and request for judicial notice, and
sending to client for review
|
$450
|
1.6
|
1
|
0.6
|
$450
|
|
5/30/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Videoconference with client
representative as well as Senior Associate Naira Soghbatyan and Associate
Talia Nimmer discussing opening brief.
|
$800
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
0.0
|
$720
|
|
5/30/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Conference with the client, Mitch
and Talia.
|
$650
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
0.0
|
$455
|
|
5/30/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Conference with Talia and Mitch re
case and issues after the conference with the client.
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$130
|
|
5/30/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Review and compilation of various
cases re promissory or equitable estoppel.
|
$650
|
1.3
|
1.3
|
0.0
|
$845
|
|
5/30/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Meeting with Brandon Young, Mitch
Tsai, and Naira Soghbatyan re promissory estoppel research assignment
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
5/30/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Meeting with Walter Lamb, Mitch
Tsai, and Naira Soghbatyan re opening brief revisions
|
$450
|
0.7
|
0.4
|
0.3
|
$180
|
|
5/30/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing client's revisions to
opening brief, revising, and sending latest draft to
Mitch Tsai and Naira Soghbatyan for review
|
$450
|
2.9
|
1.9
|
1.0
|
$855
|
|
5/31/23
|
Brandon Young
|
Research cases re: estoppel against
government agency.
|
$200
|
4
|
2
|
2.0
|
$400
|
|
5/31/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and worked on the opening
brief draft by Talia.
|
$650
|
5.1
|
3
|
2.1
|
$1,950
|
|
5/31/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Adding Naira Soghbatyan's suggested
edits to opening brief
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
5/31/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Naira Soghbatyan's
redlines to opening brief and sending revised version to client for review
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$270
|
|
6/1/23
|
Brandon Young
|
Research cases re: [redacted]
|
$200
|
6
|
6
|
0.0
|
$1,200
|
|
6/1/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review and draft Tables of
Authority for Opening Brief.
|
$200
|
1.5
|
0.9
|
0.6
|
$180
|
|
6/1/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review and discuss formatting of
document and tables of authority.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
6/1/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing table of authorities
with Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
6/2/23
|
Brandon Young
|
Citation for use of section 431.20.
|
$200
|
1
|
0.2
|
0.8
|
$40
|
|
6/2/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing draft Opening
Brief.
|
$800
|
2.3
|
1.5
|
0.8
|
$1,200
|
|
6/2/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Meeting with client and Associate
Talia Nimmer regarding opening brief.
|
$800
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$400
|
|
6/2/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Worked on the written submissions.
|
$650
|
4.4
|
1
|
3.4
|
$650
|
|
6/2/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss opening brief Tables of
Authority with Attorney Talia and add exhibit covers to exhibits.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
6/2/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Finalize Declaration of Talia and
Request for Judicial Notice for filing.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
6/2/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review Opening Brief and amend
Tables of Authority.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
6/2/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss filing of Declarations,
Request for Judicial Notice, and Opening Brief. Finalize Talia Nimmer's
declaration.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
6/2/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Perform final and last minute edits
to Opening Brief, Request of Judicial Review, and Declaration. File and
Eserve via One Legal.
|
$200
|
1.6
|
1
|
0.6
|
$200
|
|
6/2/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Meeting with Mitch Tsai and client
re opening brief final edits
|
$450
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$225
|
|
6/2/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Making final edits to opening
brief, declaration, and request for judicial notice
|
$450
|
1.4
|
1
|
0.4
|
$450
|
|
6/2/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing caselaw re [redacted]
with Nara Soghbatyan, Mitch Tsai, and Brandon Young
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$90
|
|
6/2/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing request for judicial
notice v. motion to augment with Naira Soghbatyan
and Mitch Tsai
|
$450
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
$135
|
|
6/2/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Searching/reviewing administrative
record for citations for opening brief
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
6/2/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing verifying request for
judicial notice documents with Mitch Tsai and Naira Soghbatyan, and revising
declaration in support of opening brief
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
6/3/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Downloading and saving filed opening
brief documents and sending to client for review
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$90
|
|
6/5/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process conformed copies of
accepted Opening Brief, Request for Judicial Notice, and Declaration of
Talia.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
7/3/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and analyzed the
Opposition brief by the Commission; reviewed and researched their cited case
law [redacted]
|
$650
|
1.2
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
$780
|
|
7/3/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Respondent's opening
opposition brief and discussing counter arguments with associate Naira
Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
1.1
|
1.1
|
0.0
|
$495
|
|
7/5/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting reply brief outline and
sending to Mitch Tsai and associate Naira Soghbatyan for review
|
$450
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
0.0
|
$1,440
|
|
7/5/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing and responding to client
Walter Lamb's email re reply brief
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$90
|
|
7/7/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the reply brief outline
prepared by associate Talia Nimmer; conducted legal research and review of
the record; supplemented the outline with record evidence and legal
authority, to help with the drafting of the reply brief; emailed the
revised/supplemented outline to Talia Nimmer and the team.
|
$650
|
6.4
|
4
|
2.4
|
$2,600
|
|
7/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing and revising associate
Naira Soghbatyan's reply brief outline and sending to Mitch Tsai for review
|
$450
|
1.6
|
1.4
|
0.2
|
$630
|
|
7/10/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting reply brief
|
$450
|
3.7
|
3.7
|
0.0
|
$1,665
|
|
7/11/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Researching caselaw re [redacted]
and continued drafting reply brief
|
$450
|
3.7
|
2
|
1.7
|
$900
|
|
7/12/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and edited the Reply Brief
prepared by associate Talia Nimmer;
conducted required legal research.
|
$650
|
5
|
3
|
2.0
|
$1,950
|
|
7/12/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing and responding to client
Walter Lamb's email re reply brief outline and reviewing, revising, and
sending draft reply brief to associate Naira Soghbatyan and Mitch Tsai for
review
|
$450
|
2.8
|
2
|
0.8
|
$900
|
|
7/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing [redacted] for reply
brief drafing with associate Naira Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
7/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Researching caselaw re [redacted]
and drafting request for judicial notice in support of reply brief
|
$450
|
1.1
|
1.1
|
0.0
|
$495
|
|
7/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Researching, downloading,
reviewing, saving, and sending to associate Naira Soghbatyan [redacted]
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$270
|
|
7/14/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and edited the Reply Brief
prepared by Talia Nimmer.
|
$650
|
6.2
|
3
|
3.2
|
$1,950
|
|
7/14/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and supplemented the reply
brief prepared by associate Talia Nimmer; emailed the same to principal Mitch
Tsai and associate Talia Nimmer, for further review.
|
$650
|
8.1
|
4
|
4.1
|
$2,600
|
|
7/16/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing associate Naira
Soghbatyan's redlines to reply brief and emailing Naira and Mitch Tsai
feedback
|
$450
|
1.2
|
0.8
|
0.4
|
$360
|
|
7/17/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and edited the RJN
prepared by associate Talia Nimmer.
|
$650
|
1.3
|
0.5
|
0.8
|
$325
|
|
7/17/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Edited and supplemented the draft
Request for Judicial Notice, prepared by associate Talia Nimmer and emailed
it to Talia with comments and
recommendations.
|
$650
|
1.8
|
1
|
0.8
|
$650
|
|
7/17/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising request for judicial
notice in support of reply brief and sending to associate Naira Soghbatyan
for review
|
$450
|
0.9
|
0.5
|
0.4
|
$225
|
|
7/17/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising reply brief and sending
copy to client Walter Lamb for review
|
$450
|
0.8
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
$225
|
|
7/17/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing associate Naira
Soghbatyan's redline to request for judicial notice and revising
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
7/18/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Preparing reply brief. Reviewing
opening and opposition brief.
|
$800
|
1
|
1
|
0.0
|
$800
|
|
7/18/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing reply brief.
|
$800
|
2
|
1.5
|
0.5
|
$1,200
|
|
7/18/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Meeting with Senior Associate Naira
Soghbatyan and Associate Talia Nimmer regarding reply brief.
|
$800
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$480
|
|
7/18/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Conference call with Principal
Mitch Tsai and associate Talia Nimmer re reply brief issues.
|
$650
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$260
|
|
7/18/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Include docket tracking for any
further filings and monitoring
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
7/18/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review Westlaw Dockets and pull
conformed Opening and Opposition Brief.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
7/18/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Communication with Attorney Talia
N. regarding filing of RJN and Reply brief.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
7/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Phone call with client Walter Lamb
re [redacted]
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
7/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing client Walter Lamb's
[redacted] revising reply brief and request for judicial notice, and sending
updated drafts to Mitch Tsai for review
|
$450
|
2.4
|
1.9
|
0.5
|
$855
|
|
7/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Meeting with Mitch Tsai and
associate Naira Soghbatyan re reply brief arguments
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
7/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Revising and rearranging reply
brief and request for judicial notice to incorporate Mitch Tsai's recommendations
and requests
|
$450
|
1.8
|
1.4
|
0.4
|
$630
|
|
7/19/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing draft reply
brief.
|
$800
|
1.4
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
$560
|
|
7/19/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Videoconference with Senior
Associate Naira Soghbatyan, Associate Talia Nimmer and Paralegal Steven Thong
editing final brief.
|
$800
|
1.9
|
1
|
0.9
|
$800
|
|
7/19/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and further edited the
reply brief, prepared by associate Talia Nimmer.
|
$650
|
4.5
|
2.6
|
1.9
|
$1,690
|
|
7/19/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the reply brief and addressed
issues of concern.
|
$650
|
1.9
|
1
|
0.9
|
$650
|
|
7/19/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review Westlaw docket and pull
Court Order from Los Angeles Superior Court indicating advancement of trial.
Update calendar and notify Attorney Talia N. and Attorney Naira S.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
7/19/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Draft Table of Contents and Table
of Authorities for Reply Brief. Discuss changes with Attorney Talia regarding
citations.
|
$200
|
1.2
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
7/19/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Video Conference Meeting with Attorneys
Mitch T, Naira S, and Talia N. to discuss changes to Reply Brief and RJN.
|
$200
|
1.9
|
1.4
|
0.5
|
$280
|
|
7/19/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Finalize Reply Brief and Request
for Judicial Notice and Efile/Serve via One Legal.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
7/19/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Relay filed reply brief, RJN, and
continuance to client, Walter.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
7/19/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Mitch Tsai's redlined to
reply brief, revising reply brief in accordance with Mitch's suggestions, and
sending revised draft to associate Naira Soghbatyan and Mitch Tsai for review
|
$450
|
1.1
|
0.8
|
0.3
|
$360
|
|
7/19/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Video conference with Mitch Tsai,
paralegal Steven Thong, and associate Naira Soghbatyan discussing reply brief
formatting and arguments
|
$450
|
2
|
1.4
|
0.6
|
$630
|
|
7/20/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process Conformed Copies of Reply
Brief and RJN
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
7/26/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Preparing for trial. Reviewing and
responding to e-mail from Naira Soghbatyan regarding administrative record
|
$800
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$400
|
|
7/26/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Emailed Principal Mitch Tsai and
associate Talia Nimmer about [redacted]; researched [redacted]
|
$650
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$260
|
|
7/26/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing and responding to
associate Naira Soghbatyan's email re helpful administrative record citations
for trial
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
7/27/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Communicated with Principal Mitch
Tsai re future steps; emailed opposing counsel with a copy of the Joint
Appendix, requesting review and feedback by the end of today.
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$130
|
|
8/17/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting trial outline
|
$450
|
3.6
|
2
|
1.6
|
$900
|
|
8/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Finalizing and sending trial
outline to associate Naira Soghbatyan for review
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
8/23/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed and supplemented the trial
outline prepared by associate Talia N.; conducted legal research for it; sent
the outline back along with a new case found in support.
|
$650
|
3.6
|
1.3
|
2.3
|
$845
|
|
8/23/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Email re court reporters - sent to
principal Mitch T. and the team.
|
$650
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$65
|
|
8/24/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review of Reporters and
administrative task to determine Court Reporter for September 7, 2023 Trial.
Outgoing call to Coalition Court Reporters to determine
quote for cost of reporting.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
8/24/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing calls to Huntington Court
Reporting & Aptus Court Reporting for quotes.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
8/24/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Incoming call from Sean (Huntington
Court eporter) to discuss pricing on Court
Reporting.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
8/24/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing associate Naira
Soghbatyan's redlines to trial outline
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
8/24/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing court reporter costs and
quotes with associate Naira Soghbatyan and paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
8/25/23
|
Christina Clifton
|
Prepare binder of Courtesy Copies.
Unfortunately, we ran into a lot of delays -printing ~2,000 pages, going to
the store for a 2-hole puncher & then again for metal prongs (ones in the
office were too big). Plus, the hole puncher only can do 15 pages at a time
so it took pretty much all afternoon.
|
$200
|
5
|
2
|
3.0
|
$400
|
|
8/25/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Helped the team prepare courtesy
copies for the court.
|
$650
|
3.5
|
0.5
|
3.0
|
$325
|
|
8/25/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing call to Aptus Court
Reporting to request for Mary Gagne regarding quotes for Court Reporting.
Outgoing email to Aptus Court Reporting for scheduling and quotes.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
8/25/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing call and outgoing email to
Veritext technicians to inquire on quote for Court Reporting.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
8/25/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Communication between Attorney
Naira S. and Christina C. regarding preparation of documents to be submitted
to Department 82. Prepare documents and confirm necessary tasks for providing
courtesy copies to the Court.
|
$200
|
1.7
|
1
|
0.7
|
$200
|
|
8/25/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Communication with Aptus Court
Reporting regarding pricing of reporting/transcripts.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
8/25/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing providing the court with
courtesy copies with associate Naira Soghbatyan and paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
8/28/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing request for direction on
delivery of courtesy copies from Paralegal Steven Thong. Drafting e-mail in
response.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
8/28/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Communicated with principal Mitch
T. and paralegal Steven T. re sending the courtesy copies to the Court; met
with Nationwide messenger to deliver the copies and provided verbal instructions
on the manner of delivery.
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$130
|
|
8/28/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Communicated with opposing counsel
re court reporter issue and sent a follow up email for same.
|
$650
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$65
|
8/28/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss arrangements of courtesy
copies with Attorney Naira S. and Paralegal Christina C. Arrange for delivery
of Courtesy Copies to Department 82 through Nationwide.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
8/28/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process Nationwide confirmation of
delivery of Courtesy Copies.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
8/28/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing court reporter quotes
and emailing opposing counsel Gary Tavetain re splitting costs with associate
Naira Soghbatyan and paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
8/29/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss with Attorney Naira S.
regarding scheduling Court Report for Department 82. Perform outgoing email
to Court Report to schedule remote appearance.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
8/29/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss confirmation and further
request of information with Attorney Naira S. Update Proof of Service
template and provide information to Aptus Court Reporting for further
processing.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
8/31/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Observed trial in Calabasas case,
in preparation of trial on Sep 7, 2023 in the same dept. 82.
|
$650
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
0.0
|
$585
|
|
9/5/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with client regarding
Thursday, September 7, 2023 trial hearing.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
9/5/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss with Attorney Attorney
Talia N. and Mitchell T. regarding Court Reporter Fee and Transcription.
Outgoing email to Aptus to include standard transcript.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
9/5/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing call to Department 82 to
inquire on tentative rulings.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/5/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing email to Aptus to confirm
splitting fees and fees of transcripts.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/5/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing court reporter status
and estimate with Mitch Tsai and paralegal Steven Thong and sending follow up
email to Fish and Game Commission counsel Gary Tavetian
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/5/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Sending client Walter Lamb court reporter
estimate
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/5/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Asking paralegal Steven Thong to
contact court re tentative ruling timing
|
$450
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$45
|
|
9/6/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Preparing for trial. Reviewing
outline
|
$800
|
2.2
|
1
|
1.2
|
$800
|
|
9/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review email from Office of
Attorney General and relay to Attorney Naira S. and Attorney Talia N. for
further proceedings.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing communication to client to
inquire on remote appearance.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Schedule Attorney Naira S. for
Court Connect
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Contact Attorney Talia N. for
Walter's Number. Outgoing call to client Walter to inquire on in person or
remote hearing.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
9/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing transcript costs with
Aptus Court Reporters staff and emailing client Walter Lamb estimate
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Checking los angeles superior court
website for tentative ruling
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing trial appearance plan
with Mitch Tsai
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/7/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Preparing for trial hearing.
|
$800
|
3.3
|
2
|
1.3
|
$1,600
|
|
9/7/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Attending and arguing at trial
hearing.
|
$800
|
1.7
|
1.7
|
0.0
|
$1,360
|
|
9/7/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Travel to and from trial hearing.
|
$800
|
1
|
1
|
0.0
|
$800
|
|
9/7/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with client regarding
trial hearing.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/7/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the trial outline;
reviewed and responded to questions by principal Mitch T. and associate Talia
N re compatibility issues and statutes/regulations.
|
$650
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$195
|
|
9/7/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Prepared for trial, reviewing
briefs and the trial outline; reviewed and responded to questions from
principal Mitch T.. and associate Talia N. re trial; reviewed the
tentative; had a call with Mitch T. and Talia N. re issues in the tentative;
attended and appeared at the hearing; communicated with the Aptus Court
reporting to ensure court reporter will be there.
|
$650
|
5.6
|
4
|
1.6
|
$2,600
|
|
9/7/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Continuously check for availability
of Tentative Ruling. Process Tentative Ruling and forward copy to client.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
9/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Preparing for trial with Mitch Tsai
|
$450
|
2.6
|
2
|
0.6
|
$900
|
|
9/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Attending trial with Mitch Tsai
|
$450
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
0.0
|
$810
|
|
9/11/23
|
Hind Baki
|
Per CFO Hongmiao Li's request,
tried to find a press release about Ballona Wetlands latest victory; added a
news link to the case notes.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0
|
0.2
|
$0
|
|
9/11/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Communicated with Paralegal Steven
T. and associate Talia N. re preparing the judgment/write and order;
contacted the clerk of Dept. 82 to see if there is a separate signed ruling
by the court; communicated with Talia N. and Principal Mitch T. re costs and
attorney fees
|
$650
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$130
|
|
9/11/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review docket tracking and pull
court minute orders and ruling document.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
9/11/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss final ruling document with
Attorney Mitchell T. and Naira S. confirm with Naira S. final ruling document
and relay information to Attorney Mitchell T.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
9/11/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Processed Los Angeles Superior
Court ruling and forward information to Attorneys.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/11/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Word conversion of Tentative Ruling
and Final Ruling. Create compared version to check for any differences.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
9/11/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Calculating and calendaring
attorney fee and proposed judgment deadlines
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/11/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting proposed judgment and proposed
writ of mandate
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$270
|
|
9/11/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing judge's final ruling
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/12/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing final ruling from court
as well as a compare of final ruling to tentative ruling.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
9/12/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Drafting and editing Proposed
Judgment and Petition for Writ of Mandate.
|
$800
|
2
|
1.5
|
0.5
|
$1,200
|
|
9/12/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Revised and supplemented the draft
Judgment and Writ prepared by associate Talia N., communicated with Talia N.
and principal Mitch T. re timing of sending those to the opposing counsel;
sent the revised drafts along with the summary of revisions
to the team, including associate Talia N. and principal Mitch T.
|
$650
|
2.4
|
1.5
|
0.9
|
$975
|
|
9/12/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing proposed judgment
deadline with Mitch Tsai and associate Naira Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/12/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing associate Naira
Soghbatyan's revisions to proposed judgement and writ of mandate
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/13/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing revised proposed judgment
from Associate Naira Soghbatyan.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
9/13/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed email communications re
proposed judgment and responded to those.
|
$650
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$65
|
|
9/13/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Revision in the proposed judgment.
|
$650
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$65
|
|
9/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing, revising, finalizing,
and sending to Fish and Game Commission counsel for review proposed judgment
and writ of mandate
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
9/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing amending proposed
judgment with firm name change and attorney fee specification with associate
Naira Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/14/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing proposed modification to
Proposed Judgment from co-counsel Sabrina Venskus. Approving changes for
submission to opposing counsel Gary Tevetian for California Fish & Game
Commission.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
9/14/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss with Attorney Mitch T.
regarding billables spreadsheet.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/14/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review and sort through billables
and expenses. Discuss with Attorney Mitchell Tsai.
|
$200
|
1.5
|
1.5
|
0.0
|
$300
|
|
9/15/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing timesheets produced by
former counsel fo record Sabrina Venskus.
Drafting e-mail to Sabrina Venskus with follow-up questions.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/15/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and preparing report on
time entries and expenses.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/15/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Commission attorney
Daniel Lucas's redlines to proposed judgment and writ of mandate and
disussing with associate Naira Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/16/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing Proposed Judgment from Dept
of Fish & Game.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
9/17/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing changes to proposed
judgment and writ from opposing counsel Daniel Lucas. Drafting revised
judgment and writ in response.
|
$800
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.0
|
$640
|
|
9/18/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the ruling and the
proposed revisions by both the Respondent and also Principal Mitch T.;
revised the judgment and writ, and also drafted an email about those
revisions for the opposing counsel, pending principal Mitch T.'s review;
emailed the revised drafts and the draft email to Principal Mitch T.
|
$650
|
2.4
|
1.5
|
0.9
|
$975
|
|
9/18/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Saving notes on clio re ruling
issuance, proposed judgment, and meet and confer dates
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/20/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing draft e-mail
and proposed judgment and writ prepared by Associate Naira Soghbatyan.
|
$800
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$400
|
|
9/20/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review incoming email from Aptus
Court Reporting. Create account and process September 07, 2023 Transcript for
team's review.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
9/21/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Reviewed the proposed judgment and
writ and the latest revisions by principal
Mitch T.; revised the draft email; sent the final versions to the opposing
party, along with the email as to why Petitioner declines to incorporate
Respondent's proposed
revisions.
|
$650
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$260
|
|
9/21/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss transcripts with Attorney
Naira S. and forward working link and copy.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/21/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss Administrative task with
Attorney Naira S. regarding outgoing call to Court Clerk to confirm Proposed
Judgment filing.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/21/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing second proposed judgment
email to Fish and Game Commission counsel
with associate Naira Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/21/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Forwarding associate Naira
Soghbatyan's email to Fish and Game Commissionn
counsel to client Walter Lamb
|
$450
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
-0.1
|
$90
|
|
9/22/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and discussing proposed
judgment and writing with Associates Naira Soghbatyan and Talia Nimmer
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/25/23
|
Malou Reyes
|
Review party names and draft Notice
of Change of Firm name in preparation for service to all parties.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/25/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Discussing proposed judgment meet
and confer timing with Associate Naira Soghbatyan.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/25/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review instructions by Attorney
Naira S. regarding outgoing communication to Courtroom 82 to clarify some
questions. Call Department 82 for clarifications on filings and Proposed
Writ.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
9/25/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Communication with Attorney Naira
S. regarding proposed judgement and filing
procedures in Department 82. Further discussion of deadlines Proposed
Judgment and deadline of Memo of Costs according to 3.1700 Rule of the Court.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
9/25/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Communication with Paralegal
Christina C. regarding physical copies of Court's Transcripts.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/26/23
|
Malou Reyes
|
Review and revise Notice of Change
of Firm Name.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$40
|
|
9/26/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and responding to client
e-mail regarding [Proposed] Judgment.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/26/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing with Mitch Tsai and emailing
Fish and Game Commission re latest draft of proposed judgment and writ
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/27/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Discussing proposed judgment with
Associates Talia Nimmer and Naira Soghbatyan.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/27/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review and respond to Aptus
Reporting for further processing of billing invoice.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/27/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing and discussing with Mitch
Tsai and Naira Soghbatyan FGC's proposed judgment and writ revisions
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
9/27/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Sending email to FGC counsel Daniel
Lucas re latest draft of proposed judgment & writ
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
9/28/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing draft
proposed judgment and declaration.
|
$800
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
9/28/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing revised Nimmer
declaration.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
9/28/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss filing & serving of
proposed judgement, proposed writ, and declaration. Finalize filing
documents, serve & file.
|
$200
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
$100
|
|
9/28/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting declaration in support of
proposed judgment and finalizing proposed judgment and proposed writ for
filing
|
$450
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$270
|
|
9/28/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing declaration regarding
proposed judgment with Mitch Tsai and revising accordingly
|
$450
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
$135
|
|
9/28/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing declaration regarding
proposed judgment with associate Naira Soghbatyan and revising declaration
accordingly
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
$90
|
|
9/28/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing filing proposed
judgment, proposed writ, and Talia Nimmer declaration with paralegal Steven
Thong
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
9/29/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process conformed copies of
Proposed Judgment and Writ.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/29/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Internal communication with
Attorney Talia N. and Attorney Mitchell T. regarding lodging/filing of
Proposed Judgment
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
9/29/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing proposed judgment
courtesy copy delivery with paralegal Steven Thong
and Mitch Tsai
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
10/9/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and responding to client
e-mail regarding [Proposed] Judgment.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
10/9/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review calendar and communications
regarding oppositions to proposed judgment. Update calendar with opposition
deadline.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
10/16/23
|
Malou Reyes
|
Finalize and e-file, e-serve Notice
of Firm name change with One Legal. Receive and categorize confirmation.
|
$200
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
$120
|
|
10/17/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and responding to e-mail
from client regarding proposed judgment.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
10/17/23
|
Steven Thong
|
File review and research on Westlaw
for any signed proposed judgment.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
10/19/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss file and status of judgment
with Attorney Naira S.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
10/23/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing proposed judgment status
with Mitch Tsai and paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
10/27/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Phone call with client regarding
proposed judgment and timeframe for release.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
10/27/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review of Hard Expense excel spread
sheet and update Memorandum of Costs.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
11/1/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Research status of Judge's judgment
and call Court Clerk to inquire on status of judgment and status conference.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
11/1/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing proposed judgment status
with paralegal Steven Thong and associate Naira Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/6/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Communicated with paralegal Steven
T., principal Mitch T., and associate Talia N. re
judgment entered and actions to be taken, including filing of the request for
dismissal.
|
$650
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$65
|
|
11/6/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Communicated with principal Mitch
T., associate Talia N., and paralegal Steven T. re judgment and any future
actions to take.
|
$650
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$65
|
|
11/6/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Called the court clerk to find out
about the writ and why it was not signed and to find out if anything needs to
be done on our end; updated the legal team about it.
|
$650
|
0.4
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
$195
|
|
11/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Research into status of Judgment.
Look through westlaw and client's returned Judgment. Process and relay to Attorney
Talia N.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
11/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Firm communication regarding
Proposed Writ of Mandate issuance and lodging.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
11/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing calls to Department 82 and
General Court Clerk to inquire on signed proposed writ of mandate insuance.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
11/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discuss Proposed Writ of Mandate
with Attorney Talia N. to inquire on lodging procedures.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
11/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process Conformed Copy Proposed
Judgment, Minute Order, Notice of Entry of Judgment, and Certificate of
Mailing from Westlaw.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
11/6/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discussion with Attorney Naira S.
regarding previous September 28, 2023 filing of Declaration, Writ, and
Proposed Judgment.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
11/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing and responding to client
email re judgment entry and status conference
and directing paralegal Steven Thong to calendar memorandum of costs deadline
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
11/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing individual attorney and
paralegal rates with paralegal Steven Thong and Mitch Tsai re memorandum of
costs preparation
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
11/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Researching California rules of
court re deadline to file motion for attorneys fees, discussing with Mitch
Tsai and paralegal Steven Thong, and calendaring deadline
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
$90
|
|
11/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing Court's minute order re
dismissing declaratory relief claim with Mitch Tsai and associate Naira
Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing whether to lodge writ of
mandate with court with associate Naira Soghbatyan, Mitch Tsai, and paralegal
Steven Thong and drafting notice of lodging
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
$90
|
|
11/6/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting request for dismissal re declaratory
relief claim and proof of service
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
11/7/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing Notice of
Lodging of Proposed Writ of Mandate.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
11/7/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing Request for Dismissal.
|
$800
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$240
|
|
11/7/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Research into Entity/address for
Physical Process Serving. Outgoing calls for California Fish and Games
Commission and Legal Counsel Michael Yaun to inquire on Physical Process
Serving.
|
$200
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
11/7/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Schedule with Nationwide Physical
Process Serving to California Fish and Game
Commission
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
11/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing contacting court clerk
re unsigned writ of mandate with associate Naira Soghbatyan
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing entry of writ of mandate
and service on the fish and game commission
with Mitch Tsai and paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Finalizing and sending request for
dismissal re declaratory relief claim to Mitch Tsai for review/approval
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/7/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing request for dismissal
with associate Naira Soghbatyan and Mitch Tsai and revising language to
prayer for relief (i) and (ii)
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
11/8/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Finalize Request for Dismissal,
File/Serve, and submit Courtesy Copy to Dept 82.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
11/8/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Review notice from Nationwide
regarding failed Service of Process. Attempt contact with California Fish
& Game Commission and discuss with Attorney Talia N.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
11/8/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing call to California Fish
and Game Commission and outgoing call
to Nationwide to determine logistics of process serving.
|
$200
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$60
|
|
11/8/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process conformed Request for
Dismissal.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
11/8/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process Nationwide Proof of Service
and relay information to Walter that service has been completed. Update
calendar to reflect 180 day return deadline.
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
11/8/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing filing/serving request
for dismissal with paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$45
|
|
11/8/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing writ of mandate personal
service attempt and next steps with Mitch Tsai and paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.0
|
$135
|
|
11/8/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing service of writ,
notifying client, and calendaring return deadline with paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/9/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Reviewing and editing Notice of
Filing of Proof of Service of Writ of Mandate.
|
$800
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$160
|
|
11/9/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Finalize and File/Eserve Notice of
Filing of Proof of Service of Writ of Mandate
|
$200
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$40
|
|
11/9/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Process conformed copy of Notice of
Filing of Proof of Service of Writ of Mandate
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
11/9/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Check on status of Request for
Dismissal and if November 16, 2023 Status Conference is still happening.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
11/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Drafting notice of proof of service
of writ of mandate and sending to Mitch Tsai for review
|
$450
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.0
|
$180
|
|
11/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing Mitch Tsai's redline to
Notice of Filing proof of service of writ of mandate and discussing filing
and serving with paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Checking court docket re whether
status conference was taken off calendar
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/9/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Discussing writ of mandate return
deadline with Mitch Tsai
|
$450
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$45
|
|
11/13/23
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
Discussing filing of request for dismissal
and reviewing docket with Associate Talia
Nimmer and Paralegal Steven Thong.
|
$800
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$80
|
|
11/13/23
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
Zoom meeting with principal Mitch
T., associate Talia N., and paralegal Steven T. to
discuss fee motion, request for dismissal, and costs memorandum issues.
|
$650
|
0.7
|
0.5
|
0.2
|
$325
|
|
11/13/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Discussion with Attorney Talia N.
and Mitchell T. regarding Request for Dismissal and Status Conference.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
11/13/23
|
Steven Thong
|
Outgoing call to Department 82 to
inquire on status of Request for Dismissal. Relay
information to attorneys.
|
$200
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
$20
|
|
11/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Reviewing case docket and
discussing status conference and request for dismissal status with Mitch Tsai
and paralegal Steven Thong
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
11/13/23
|
Talia Nimmer
|
Calling and speaking to court clerk
re request for dismissal description and
processing
|
$450
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.0
|
$90
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$113,680
|
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that
petitioner is entitled to the lodestar amount of $118,000 ($4,320
Venskus + $113,680 Tsai).
2.
Requests for Multiplier
Petitioner
also seeks a 1.5 multiplier of the lodestar amount. Courts look to the
following factors, among others, in determining whether a multiplier is
appropriate: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the
skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the
litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; (3) the contingent
nature of the fee award, both from the point of view of eventual victory on the
merits and the point of view of establishing eligibility for an award; (4) the
fact that an award against the state would ultimately fall upon the taxpayers
….” (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)
Here,
the Court finds that the requested 1.5 multiplier is not warranted. Even if 14
C.C.R. § 630 was not the subject of case law, the resolution of this case
required a straightforward review of the record to determine whether the
parking lots and baseball field were ever the subject of a compatibility
determination. Although counsel represented petitioner on a partial contingency
basis, the Court finds that the substantial lodestar award as set forth above
sufficiently compensates counsel for their efforts. (Weeks v. Baker &
McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1176.)
Regardless of any budget deficit, the
Commission’s repeated denials of petitioner’s request for a compatibility
determination, as discussed in the Court’s 9/8/23 Ruling on the First Amended
Petition for Writ of Mandate, warrants against imposition of a negative
multiplier. (See Rogel v. Lynwood Redevelopment Agency (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 1319, 1331, quoting Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California
State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 400-01 [taxpayer burden should
not be considered where a governmental entity “chooses to defend its conduct
through lengthy and complex litigation”].)
3.
Fees on Fees
With respect to the fees
incurred in obtaining fees, petitioner seeks a total of $54,220, calculated as follows:
|
ATTORNEY
|
HOURS
|
RATE
|
TOTAL
|
|
Mitchell Tsai
|
20.7
|
$800/hour
|
$16,560.00
|
|
Naira Soghbatyan
|
1.2
|
$650/hour
|
$780.00
|
|
Talia Nimmer
|
30.6
|
$450/hour
|
$13,770.00
|
|
Paralegal
|
21.8
|
$200/hour
|
$4,360.00
|
|
Estimated Time for Motion Reply and
Hearing
|
30 hours
|
$625/hour (blended rate)
|
$18,750.00
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$54,220.00
|
The
Court finds that the hours claimed for the fee motion are excessive.
Considering attorney Tsai’s averment that Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm “almost
entirely works on public-interest environmental litigation” (Tsai Decl. ¶ 6),
this routine fee motion should not have taken as many hours as claimed by
counsel.
In
the opposition, respondent suggested that petitioner be awarded fees based on 8
hours for the motion, 4 hours for the reply, and 3 hours for attending the
hearing, a total of 15 hours. (Opp. at 18:14-16.) The Court finds respondent’s
suggestion is reasonable.
Petitioner’s
counsel calculated the blended hourly rate as $625 per hour. (Tsai Decl. ¶ 23.)
Counsel does not explain how this rate was calculated. The Court calculates the
blended rate to be $525 per hour ([$800 Tsai + $650 Soghbatyan + $450 Nimmer +
$200 paralegal] ÷ 4 = $525 per hour).
Accordingly,
petitioner is awarded $7,875 for the fee motion (15 hours x $525/hour
blended rate).
III. Conclusion
The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Using the appropriate lodestar approach, and
based on the foregoing findings and in view of the totality of the
circumstances, the total and reasonable amount of attorney fees incurred for
the work performed in connection with the writ petition is $125,875 ($4,320 Venskus + $113,680 Tsai + $7,875
fee motion). Such fees are awarded
to petitioner Ballona Wetlands Land Trust and against respondent California
Fish and Game Commission.
Case Number: 21STCV03186 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: 82 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Date: 1/30/24
(1:30 PM)
Case: Edwin Villagonzalo et al. v.
Hyundai Motor America (21STCV03186)
TENTATIVE
RULING:
Plaintiffs
Edwin Villagonzalo and Carlisle Villagonzalo’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
The Order for
which plaintiffs seek the Court’s reconsideration was issued on August 31,
2021. At the hearing at which the Court
made the Order in question, both parties waived notice thereof. (8/31/21 Minute Order.) Plaintiffs did not file the instant Motion
for Reconsideration until over two years later on October 19, 2023. CCP § 1008(a) requires a motion for
reconsideration to be brought “within 10 days after service upon the party of
written notice of entry of the order.” Accordingly, the instant motion is
untimely and must be DENIED.
However,
pursuant to CCP § 1008(c), “at any time,” the Court may on its own motion
“reconsider a prior order it entered . . . and enter a different order” where
the Court “determines there has been a change of law that warrants it.” For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby
VACATES its August 31, 2021 Order compelling arbitration and enters a new and
different Order denying defendant Hyundai Motor America’s Motion to Compel
Arbitration in this matter.
In deciding whether
to reconsider a prior order on its own motion, the Court “may consider a number
of factors in determining whether to exercise its discretion, including the
importance of the change of law, the timing of the motion, and the
circumstances of the case.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court
(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 96, 107, citing Phillips v. Sprint PCS (2012) 209
Cal.App.4th 758, 769.) As discussed
below, notwithstanding the other factors the Court may consider, due to the
importance of the change of law, the Court finds that granting relief under CCP
§ 1008(c) is appropriate here.
Before
proceeding to discuss the change in the law, the Court pauses to consider the
other relevant factors for reconsideration on the Court’s own motion, which
would otherwise counsel strongly in favor of leaving the Court’s over two- and
one-half year old decision in effect. As
noted above, the Court’s decision to compel arbitration was issued in August
2021. Thereafter, in the ensuing years,
the Court held no fewer than seven different hearings and status conferences to
monitor the progress of the Court-ordered arbitration—3/2/22; 8/31/22; 12/9/22;
2/3/23; 2/17/23; 4/26/23; 5/31/23—including hearings on Orders to Show Cause
why the case should not be dismissed for plaintiffs’ failure to proceed with
arbitration as ordered by the Court. Consistent with this failure by plaintiffs
to meaningfully proceed, defendants describe in their supplemental brief how
plaintiffs “through their counsel have done everything in their power to ignore
that order, delay the selection of an arbitral forum, and delay completion of
arbitration.” (Def. Supp. Br. at 2.)
Indeed, even the bringing of the instant motion highlights plaintiffs’
extreme dilatoriness. Plaintiffs filed
the Motion for Reconsideration on October 19, 2023, citing appellate decisions
evidencing a change in law, including Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023)
89 Cal.App.5th 1324, which was decided more than six months prior on April 4,
2023.
Remarkably,
plaintiffs dispute none of the foregoing.
Nor could they. Instead,
plaintiffs merely cite Malek v. Blue Cross of California (2004) 121
Cal.App.4th 44, 60, for the proposition that “[t]he progress of the arbitration
is not material when considering a change in the law affecting whether the
arbitral forum was a correct one.” The
Court does not view this language lifted from Malek as establishing and/or
limiting factors a court may consider when evaluating whether to exercise its
discretion under CCP § 1008(c). Were the
court in Malek to have so intended, one would expect a far more
expansive discussion of the applicable factors and acknowledgment that the
court was setting forth or establishing a particular multi-factor test. “Cases are not authority for propositions not
considered therein.” (State Farm Fire
& Casualty Ins. Co . Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 614.) Rather, Malek is best read as
indicating that the progress of the arbitration was not a relevant factor in
the court’s CCP § 1008(c) determination in that case. (Cf. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 218
Cal.App.4th at 107 [discussing several factors court considered as applied to
reconsideration in that case].)
Regardless, if
this Court has interpreted Malek correctly, the apparently willful and
extreme delay by plaintiffs to avoid arbitration nonetheless gives way to the
change in law counseling in favor of CCP § 1008(c) reconsideration, as
discussed below. If plaintiffs’ read of Malek
is correct, then the result is the same, because plaintiffs’ apparent bad faith
and disregard of professional obligations through counsel are not relevant to
the § 1008(c) determination currently before the Court—though it could very
well prove to be quite relevant with regard to other determinations the Court
may later make in this case. (See,
e.g., Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th
424, 443-444 [upholding discretionary dismissal for failure to bring to trial
within three years]; Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc.(2023) 96
Cal.App.5th 908, 929-929 [affirming reduction of attorney’s fee lodestar amount
due to attorney incivility, unprofessionalism, and other case-specific factors].)
As for the
importance of the change in law, when the Court granted defendant’s motion to
compel arbitration, Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th
486 was the only case that opined on whether equitable estoppel allowed a
manufacturer to compel a consumer to arbitration under the Retail Installment
Sales Contract. The Felisilda court found that “because the [plaintiffs]
expressly agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of the condition of the
vehicle—even against third party nonsignatories to the sales contract—they are
estopped from refusing to arbitrate their claim against [the nonsignatory manufacturer].”
(Felisilda, 53 Cal.App.5th at
497.) Irrespective of whether the Court
agreed with the Felisilda decision, the Court explicitly acknowledged in
its Order compelling arbitration that “the outcome is dictated by binding
authority in Felisilda.” (8/31/21
Minute Order at 2.)
Since Felisilda, the Courts of Appeal in Ford
Motor Warranty Cases, 89 Cal.App.5th at 1324, Montemayor v. Ford Motor
Co. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 958, Kielar v. Superior Court (2023) 94
Cal.App.5th 614, and Yeh v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 264,
267 found the opposite – that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.
“Decisions of every division
of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal
courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether
or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court.” (Auto
Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) However, “where
there is more than one appellate court decision, and such appellate decisions
are in conflict . . . the court exercising inferior jurisdiction can and must
make a choice between the conflicting decisions.” (Auto Equity, 57
Cal.2d at 456.) The California Supreme Court has granted review of Ford
Motor, Montemayor, Kielar, and Yeh. The high court has allowed
citation of Ford Motor “for the limited purpose of establishing the
existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to
exercise discretion under Auto Equity…to choose between sides of any
such conflict.” (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (Cal. 2023) 310 Cal.Rptr.3d
440.)
The Court agrees with Ford Motor’s holding that
equitable estoppel does not permit the manufacturer to compel arbitration based
on provisions in the sale contract regarding claims arising out of the
condition of the vehicle. “[M]anufacturer vehicle warranties that accompany the
sale of motor vehicles without regard to the terms of the sale contract between
the purchaser and the dealer are independent of the sale contract.” (Ford
Motor, 89 Cal.App.5th at 1334.) Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of defendant’s
express written warranty, not their sales contract with the dealer. (Compl. ¶¶
7, 8, 22, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38-41; cf. Ford Motor, 89 Cal.App.5th
at 1335 [“[N]o plaintiffs alleged violations of the sale contracts’ express
terms. Rather, plaintiffs’ claims are based on [the manufacturer]s statutory
obligations to reimburse consumers or replace their vehicles when unable to
repair in accordance with its warranty”].)
The Ford Motor court persuasively explains that the
plaintiffs in Felisilda did not agree to arbitrate claims with third
party nonsignatories. (See Felisilda, 53 Cal.App.5th at 490 [arbitration
provision stated “ ‘Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or
otherwise…between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or assigns,
which arises out of or relates to ... condition of this vehicle, this contract
or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship
with third parties who do not sign this contract) shall, at your or our
election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration….’ ”].) The reference to
any relationships with third parties was a “further delineation of the subject
matter of claims the purchasers and dealers agreed to arbitrate.” (Ford
Motor, 89 Cal.App.5th at 1334-35.) “The ‘third party’ language in the
arbitration clause means that if a purchaser asserts a claim against the dealer
(or its employees, agents, successors or assigns) that relates to one of these
third party transactions, the dealer can elect to arbitrate that claim.” (Id.
at 1335.) The “third party” language does not mean that plaintiffs agreed to
arbitrate claims against defendant that arise out the condition of the vehicle.
Notwithstanding the similarity of the arbitration provisions
in Felisilda and the instant case, because plaintiffs’ claims do not
arise out of the Retail Installment Sales Contract, the Court finds that
equitable estoppel does not apply. Plaintiffs’ claims are not subject to
arbitration. The importance of this
change in the law cannot be understated.
For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to CCP § 1008(c), the Court hereby VACATES
its August 31, 2021 Order compelling arbitration in this matter and instead
hereby DENIES defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Accordingly, the stay in this matter is
hereby lifted.
As this matter
has been assigned to the Honorable Joseph Lipner, Judge in Department 72,
for all purposes as of August 7, 2023, plaintiff is ORDERED to contact
Department 72 within seven days hereof to schedule further proceedings in this
matter.
Case Number: 22STCP03985 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: 82
|
Superior Court of
California
County of Los Angeles
|
|
MARIA DE JESUS ABUNDIS,
|
Petitioner,
|
Case No.
|
22STCP03985
|
|
|
vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE, DOUGLAS R.
MCCAULEY, REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONER,
|
Respondent.
|
[TENTATIVE] RULING ON VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDATE
Dept. 82 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petitioner
Maria De Jesus Abundis petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondent California
Department of Real Estate, Douglas R. McCauley, Real Estate Commissioner to set
aside the October 10, 2022 final decision to deny petitioner’s application for
a Mortgage Loan Originator license and to issue said license.
I. Factual Background
A.
Events
Leading to Fraud Judgment
On
July 17, 2004, the Department of Real Estate (“DRE”) issued petitioner Maria De
Jesus Abundis a salesperson license.
(AR 68.) In October 2005, petitioner got a listing to sell a home. (AR 67,
400:18-20, 408.) The sellers called her on the phone telling her they wanted to
sell their home. (AR 143, 207-08, 399, 403.) Petitioner prepared the paperwork
for the transaction and spoke to her broker about it. (AR 404-05.) At least one
of the sellers followed up with petitioner asking about the status of the
transaction, as the seller was looking for money to feed their children during
the holidays. (AR 404:25-405:9.) Petitioner spoke English and Spanish with her
clients, the sellers. (AR 400.)
At
the time, petitioner was 29 years of age. (AR 10 [no. 12], 408.) Petitioner was
an independent contractor fulfilling a one-year commitment to broker Gerardo
Montelongo. (AR 355-57, 396:21-25.) According to petitioner, Montelongo told
her to close the transaction as soon as possible. (AR 404:20-24.) Petitioner
did not receive a commission from the transaction. (AR 407:22-25.)
In
February 2007, petitioner’s former clients sued her and Montelongo for fraud,
among other causes of action, related to the sale of their home. (AR 143-59,
258-83.) The civil complaint alleged that petitioner, while working for
employer-broker Montelongo, deceived her clients into participating as sellers
of their property in an illusory real estate transaction involving a “straw man”
buyer who was a friend of petitioner. The
employer-broker was a broker for both sides of the transaction, acted as the
loan agent, and received a commission for the transaction. After the transaction was consummated, the
straw man buyer reconveyed the “sold” property back to the seller’s wife as a
“gift.” In connection with facilitating
the transaction, petitioner was accused of making false representations to the
sellers that they would obtain a lower interest rate and lower monthly
payments, whereas the payments and interest rate instead increased after the
transaction. (AR 8, 146-47 [First
Amended Complaint for Damages ¶12].)
In
February 2010, petitioner appeared in pro se to defend herself at the bench
trial in the civil fraud action. (AR 130, 132.) Montelongo did not appear at
trial. (AR 130.) In August 2010, the
court entered its statement of decision in favor of plaintiff sellers and against
petitioner and her former broker. (AR 131-32.)
In September 2010, the court entered judgment awarding $135,000 in
damages against petitioner and her former broker “jointly and severally” for
“fraud and breach of fiduciary duties,” $142,245.50 in attorney’s fees, and
$11,959.00 in costs. (AR 130-32.)
The
DRE suspended petitioner’s license and lifted it less than a month later after
she paid $50,400 ($50,000 damages + $400 interest) to the DRE Recovery Account
Program. The DRE had become the assignee
of the judgment after paying the civil fraud plaintiffs $50,000 for assignment
of the plaintiffs’ judgment rights. (AR
8-9, 68, 76, 123 [ROA 239], 409:2-7.) A partial satisfaction of judgment was
subsequently filed. (AR 124 [ROA 247], 127, 350, 382.)
In
July 2017, the judgment was renewed for the total sum of $426,563.22. (AR
78-82, 125 [ROA 253], 127, 352-54, 382-83.) No additional payments have been
made toward satisfying the judgment. (AR 10 [¶ 12], 409:11-13 [petitioner
stipulated that judgment remains outstanding less credit of $50,000].)
B.
Evidence
Relevant to Rehabilitation
On
June 20, 2012, the DRE issued a broker license to petitioner. (AR 68.) Other
than the civil judgment discussed above, petitioner has not received any
complaints or been subject to disciplinary action from the DRE. (AR 68.)
Since the civil judgment, petitioner
has been active in her church. (AR 335.) Petitioner leads counseling groups at
retreats and church events, where she teaches about “justice, honesty, and
integrity.” (AR 335.) Petitioner’s church hired her to assist with its lease
contracts. (AR 335.)
Several of petitioner’s religious
and professional colleagues wrote letters supporting her character. (AR 333-42.)
Petitioner contends that at least five of these colleagues were aware of petitioner’s
civil liability. (AR 386:24-389:10.) Rosa Baltazar, a member of petitioner’s
church, remarked how petitioner “[g]ives everyone an equal opportunity” and
“treat[s] her clients…with respect, honesty, and
integrity.”
(AR 336.) Kay Wilson-Bolton, president of Real Estate Magic, Inc. and former
colleague of petitioner, wrote that petitioner was “one of the gems in the real
estate business with a stellar career as a business leader.” (AR 338.) Miguel
Guzman, who petitioner represented in the purchase of a house, described how petitioner
provided him with excellent service for over a year to help his family secure a
dream home. (AR 334.) Guzman, also a member of petitioner’s church, stated that
she was a “role model for others at church and in the community.” (AR 334.)
Petitioner has completed various
training programs and vocational courses related to real estate transactions.
In 2020, petitioner completed four consumer protection courses with Real Estate
Trainers, Inc. as part of her continuing education, covering subjects like real
estate red flags, real estate contracts, and disclosure obligations. (AR 347.) Petitioner
has successfully completed her Realtor Code of Ethics Training with the National
Association of Realtors. (AR 346, 348.)
Petitioner
has also completed various ethics and morals courses in her church, on subjects
like citizenship, charity, and integrity. (AR 383:12-384:21.)
C.
Application
for Mortgage Loan Originator License Endorsement
In
2021, petitioner applied for a Mortgage Loan Originator (“MLO”) license
endorsement to help Latina families in underserved communities secure home ownership.
(AR 69, 71, 77, 410:23-411:14.) Petitioner disclosed the outstanding judgment.
(AR 74 [D], 76, 77.) In her sworn application, petitioner stated she had been
sued for a “real estate listing.” (AR 76-77.) Petitioner also stated: “[T]he
judgment was given to the DRE and the DRE paid my enemy $50,000, so DRE suspended
my license until I was able to pay the DRE back the $50,000.” (AR 76.)
D.
Administrative
Proceedings
After
receiving petitioner’s application for an MLO endorsement, the DRE issued a
Statement of Issues finding cause to deny the application and requested a
hearing. (AR 51-55, 59-66.) Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing. (AR
51-56, 58.)
On
July 13, 2022, an evidentiary hearing was held. (AR 5, 358-62.) The DRE’s
exhibits were received in evidence by stipulation. (AR 22, 26-330 [exhibits
1-7], 361, 363.) Most of petitioner’s exhibits were received in evidence
without limitation. (AR 22, 342-354 [exhibits B-D], 361, 379-85.) Petitioner’s
character reference letters (AR 333-341 [exhibit A],) however, were received in
evidence, but considered “as administrative hearsay.” (AR 23-24 and 379:6-17.)
Petitioner
denied committing fraud. (AR 390:9-10 [“[Q]: Did you commit fraud? THE WITNESS: No”].) When asked if she did
anything wrong, petitioner blamed the broker:
Q: Did you do anything wrong in this case?
A: No.
I was following the instructions of the broker. He was my broker. It was my first listing.
(AR 390:12-14.)
When
asked about her claimed rehabilitation, petitioner took no responsibility for
what happened and instead faulted others and suggested she herself was a victim.
(AR 389.)
Q:
What are you rehabilitated from?
A:
From -- from -- from the -- from
the -- I felt defrauded. I felt like -- like a child that -- that is lied to.
From -- from all the lies and deceit. And also it was very hard. And actually
it has been very hard. It’s been hindering my -- well, you know, my person for
a long time.
(AR
389:16-22.) When again asked whether she had done anything wrong, petitioner
testified that she was “naïve” and “too trusting” and apologized “for that.”
(AR 406:10-407:12.)
On
August 3, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Eileen Cohn issued a proposed
decision denying petitioner’s application of an MLO license endorsement. (AR
5-16.)
The
ALJ acknowledged that petitioner, as a then new mother, made payment to the DRE
Recovery Account “at great sacrifice to her and her young family.” (AR 10 [¶
12].) Montelongo, the broker, has never made any payment. (AR 10 [¶ 12].) The
ALJ acknowledged that petitioner’s real estate license has not been disciplined
by the DRE, petitioner’s act of fraud and conviction were in the “distant
past,” petitioner was the only defendant in the case to make restitution to the
DRE, petitioner has a stable family life, and petitioner was active in her
church and community. (AR 9-11 [summarizing mitigating and rehabilitation
evidence], 15 [¶ 10].)
Nevertheless,
the ALJ cited the civil case filed against petitioner as cause for denial. (AR
14 [¶ 7].) The proposed decision related that, given the stringent requirements
for an MLO license endorsement, and the attention to detail required for such
an endorsement, petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the
public would be protected by giving her the endorsement. (AR 6.) Despite having
received certain evidence of rehabilitation, the ALJ ultimately concluded: “On
the other hand, the civil judgment established a degree of carelessness in real
estate transactions involving Spanish-speaking clients, the very clients
[petitioner] intends to serve.” (AR 15 [¶ 10].)
The ALJ concluded as follows:
[Petitioner’s]
evidence in mitigation and rehabilitation establishes her to be a trustworthy
and competent real estate broker, but her activities as a real estate broker
are segregated from the MLO, and given the circumstances of the civil judgment,
there is insufficient evidence the public, especially the Spanish-speaking
community she intends to serve, will be adequately protected by allowing her to
combine her skills as a broker with that of a MLO which requires an attention
to financial details.
(AR 15
[¶ 11].)
On
September 20, 2022, Douglas R. McCauley, the Real Estate Commissioner
(“Commissioner”), adopted the proposed decision, which became effective October
10, 2022. (AR 3-20.) The decision’s findings included, among other things, that:
(1) denial of the application was based on the fraud civil judgment; (2) the
judgment held petitioner jointly and severally liable for fraud; and (3) petitioner
was 29 years of age at the time of the transaction, which resulted in the civil
judgment against her. (AR 6-10.)
On
October 6, 2022, the Commissioner denied petitioner’s petition for
reconsideration. (AR 1-2.)
II. Procedural History
On
November 7, 2022, petitioner Maria De Jesus Abundis filed a Verified Petition
for Writ of Mandate. On November 30, 2023, respondent California Department of
Real Estate, Douglas R. McCauley, Real Estate Commissioner filed an Answer. On November 29, 2023, petitioner filed
an opening brief. On December 21, 2023, respondent filed an opposition. On
January 12, 2024, petitioner filed a reply. The
Court has received the administrative record lodged by respondent.
III. Standard of Review
Under CCP § 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are
whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a
fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse
of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner
required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings
are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).)
“An attempt to obtain a license to engage in a
profession or business does not involve a fundamental vested right.” (Harrington
v. Department of Real Estate (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 394, 404.) “Where no
fundamental vested right is involved, the superior court’s review is limited to
examining the administrative record to determine whether the adjudicatory
decision and its findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the
whole record.” (JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations
(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1057.) Because the administrative decision at
issue concerns the denial of a license, the Court reviews the DRE’s decision
for substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” (California
Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575,
584-85), or evidence of ponderable legal significance which is reasonable,
credible and of solid value (Kuhn v. Department of General Services
(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633). “Courts may reverse an [administrative]
decision only if, based on the evidence…a reasonable person could not reach the
conclusion reached by the agency.” (Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com.
(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 602, 610.)
An agency is presumed to
have regularly performed its official duties. (Evid. Code § 664.) A reviewing
court “will not act as counsel for either party to an appeal and will not
assume the task of initiating and prosecuting a search of the record for any purpose
of discovering errors not pointed out in the briefs.” (Fox v. Erickson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 740, 742.) When an appellant
challenges “‘the sufficiency of the evidence, all material evidence on the
point must be set forth and not merely their own evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Toigo
v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309, 317.)
“On questions of law
arising in mandate proceedings, [the Court] exercise[s] independent judgment.’”
(Christensen v. Lightbourne (2017) 15
Cal.App.5th 1239, 1251.) The interpretation of statute or regulation is a
question of law. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush
(1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 65, 71.)
IV. Analysis
A.
Law
Applicable to MLO License Endorsements
Mortgage
loan originators are individuals “who take[] a residential mortgage loan
application or offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for
compensation or gain.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 10166.01(b)(1).)
A real estate salesperson may not engage in business as an MLO without obtaining
and maintaining an MLO license endorsement. (§ 10166.02(b)(2).)
The
DRE administers the MLO license endorsement. (§ 10151(e).) The Commissioner “has
full power to regulate and control the issuance…all licenses to be issued….” (§
10071.) “Protection of the public shall be the highest priority for the
Department of Real Estate in exercising its licensing, regulatory, and
disciplinary functions. Whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent
with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall
be paramount.” (§ 10050.1.)
The
Commissioner shall not issue an MLO endorsement unless the Commissioner finds
that the applicant “has demonstrated such financial responsibility, character,
and general fitness as to command the confidence of the community and warrant a
determination that the mortgage loan originator will operate honestly, fairly,
and efficiently….” (§ 10166.05(c).) This finding required of the Commissioner “relates
to any matter, personal or professional, that may impact upon an applicant's
propensity to operate honestly, fairly, and efficiently when engaging in the
fiduciary role” of an MLO. (10 C.C.R. § 2758.3.) If an applicant’s personal
history includes any judgments for fraud, misrepresentation, or dishonest
dealing, the applicant “may” be precluded from obtaining an MLO endorsement. (Id.
§ 2758.3(a)(1).)
The
DRE is required to consider whether an applicant has made a showing of
rehabilitation. (§ 482.) The following factors are relevant to the instant
proceeding and considered in determining whether an applicant is rehabilitated
for purposes of issuing a license are:
- The time that has passed since commission of
the wrongful act
- Restitution to persons who suffered monetary
damages through substantially related wrongful acts
- Stability of family life and fulfilment of
family responsibilities
- Completion of training courses for economic
self-improvement
- Bona fide efforts toward discharging monetary
obligations to others
- Correction of business practices resulting in
injury to others
- Significant involvement in community or church
programs designed to provide social benefits
- New and different social and business
relationships from that which existed at the time of the wrongful act
- Change in attitude from that which existed at
the time of the wrongful act
(10
C.C.R. § 2911.)
The
applicant for a license has the burden of proof in application proceedings. (Martin
v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. of Cal. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 259, 265.)
“[T]he more serious the misconduct and the bad character evidence, the stronger
the applicant's showing of rehabilitation must be.” (In re Gossage
(2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080, 1096.)
B.
Merits
Petitioner
was found liable for fraud in a civil action. (AR 8, 146-47 [¶ 12], 159, 131-32.)
Under Business and Professions Code § 2758.3(a)(1), petitioner may be precluded
from obtaining an MLO license endorsement.
Petitioner contends that the
licensing requirements for a real estate license are analogous to the MLO
requirements. Business and Professions Code § 10177(j) allows the Commissioner
to deny a real estate license to an applicant if the applicant engaged in fraud
or dishonest dealing. (§ 10177(j).) According to petitioner, the DRE cannot
claim that petitioner satisfies the requirements of a salesperson or broker
license, but not an MLO license endorsement. (AR 68.) However, the requirements
to obtain a non-MLO related license are not at issue here. The Court’s analysis
here is whether, under the statutes pertaining to the MLO license endorsement, substantial
evidence supports the findings and decision of the ALJ.
Petitioner
maintains that she has rehabilitated. However, petitioner did not make a sufficient
showing that her attitude has changed since entry of the civil judgment against
her. (10 C.C.R. § 2911(14).) “Fully acknowledging the wrongfulness of [one’s] actions
is an essential step towards rehabilitation.” (Seide v. Committee of Bar
Examiners (1989) 49 Cal.3d 933, 940.) In petitioner’s application for an
MLO license endorsement, she referred to the plaintiffs in whose favor the
civil judgment was entered as “my enemy.” (AR 76, 130-32.) Further, during the
administrative hearing, instead of admitting any responsibility, petitioner
blamed the broker and denied committing fraud. (AR 390:9-10, 390:12-14.) During
the hearing, petitioner admitted speaking to the sellers and preparing
paperwork for the transaction. (AR 400, 404-05.) This is significant in that plaintiffs
in the civil fraud action alleged they entered into the transaction under the
belief their mortgage payments would decrease by “follow[ing] the instructions
and advice of [petitioner].” (AR 147.)
The
contrition petitioner expressed during the administrative hearing was her
apology for being naïve and too trusting. (AR 406:10-407:12.) That is neither
an apology nor acknowledgment of her conduct.
It certainly does not address the civil plaintiffs’ claims of fraud,
namely, that the defendants, including petitioner, had represented to the sellers
that their loan payments would be reduced if they sold their home to a “straw
man.” (AR 146-47 [¶12].) Petitioner cannot be said to have fully acknowledged
the wrongfulness of her actions leading to the civil judgment.
Moreover,
petitioner has not demonstrated that she has made any bona fide attempts to
make payments to satisfy the judgment. (AR 10 [¶ 12], 409:11-13; 10 C.C.R. §
2911(a)(2), (a)(10).) She made the required $50,400 payment to reverse the
suspension of her salesperson license. (AR 8-9, 68, 76, 123 [ROA 239], 409:2-7.)
Even though the broker with whom she was affiliated has not made any payment of
the judgment, petitioner remains jointly and severally liable under the
judgment. (AR 130-32.) Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is incapable of
making even minimal installment payments to further satisfy the judgment. Further,
the timing and amount of petitioner’s partial satisfaction of the judgment is
as consistent with her self-interest in obtaining her suspended license as it
is with rehabilitation and making amends for her actions.
With respect to the other factors
listed in the section above, the Court recognizes the evidence discussed in
section I.B above could weigh in favor of a finding that petitioner has
rehabilitated. Indeed, the ALJ also found that petitioner had provided
“compelling evidence in mitigation and rehabilitation.” (AR 6.) Even crediting
such evidence, however, full acknowledgment of the wrongfulness of the acts
leading to the civil judgment is “essential” toward rehabilitation. (Seide, 49
Cal.3d at 940.) For the reasons stated above, petitioner has failed to fully
acknowledge any wrongdoing. Accordingly, applying the “substantial evidence”
standard of review, a reasonable person could find, as the ALJ did, that the
civil judgment against petitioner evidences a carelessness and inattention to
financial details that could harm the public, especially the Spanish-speaking
community petitioner intends to serve, should the DRE approve an MLO license
endorsement. (AR 15 [¶¶ 10, 11].)
Because substantial evidence
supports the denial of petitioner’s application for an MLO license endorsement,
this Court does not disturb the decision.
(Northern Inyo Hospital v. Fari Employment Practices Comm’n
(1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 14, 24 [under substantial evidence standard, trial court
may not disregard or overturn the agency finding “for the reasons that it is
considered that a contrary finding would have been equally or more
reasonable”].)
V. Conclusion
The petition for writ of mandate is DENIED.
Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), respondent California Department of Real
Estate, Douglas R. McCauley, Real Estate Commissioner shall prepare, serve, and
ultimately file a proposed judgment.
|
Date: January
30, 2024
|
|
|
|
HON.
CURTIS A. KIN
|
Case Number: 23STCP00224 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: 82
|
Superior Court of
California
County of Los Angeles
|
|
JOHN DOE,
|
Petitioner,
|
|
|
|
|
vs.
|
|
Case No.
23STCP00224
[TENTATIVE] RULING ON FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
Dept. 82 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin)
|
|
FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
|
Respondent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petitioner John Doe petitions for a writ
of mandate directing respondent Fuller Theological Seminary to set aside a decision
finding that petitioner engaged in sexual misconduct and suspending petitioner
for five quarters.
I. Factual Allegations
This
is a sexual misconduct case. Jane Doe and petitioner John Doe were students at
respondent Fuller Theological Seminary. (First Amended Petition [“FAP”] at
1:21-23.) According to allegations from Jane, on October 13, 2021, petitioner
asked Jane sexual questions and made sexual comments. (FAP ¶ 15.) Petitioner
also allegedly showed Jane pornography without her consent. (FAP ¶ 15.)
According to petitioner, Jane brought up topics
about her sexuality and that he only asked follow-up questions. (FAP ¶¶ 18, 24.)
Petitioner denied showing or attempting to show pornography to Jane. (FAP ¶
18.)
On
October 23, 2021, Jane alleged that petitioner touched her thigh without her consent
at a party. (FAP ¶ 15.) After the party and in Jane’s apartment, petitioner
allegedly placed Jane’s hand on his penis and touched her breasts and vagina
without her consent. (FAP ¶ 15.)
According to petitioner, Jane prompted petitioner
to hold her hand. (FAP ¶ 19.) In Jane’s apartment, Jane purportedly initiated
sexual contact between them. (FAP ¶ 19.) Jane placed petitioner’s hand on her
breasts. (FAP ¶ 19.) Jane also placed her hand on petitioner’s penis. (FAP ¶
19.) Petitioner removed her hand, but Jane continued touching him on his penis,
including while he was asleep. (FAP ¶¶ 19, 24.)
Petitioner made a complaint with the Office of
Student Concerns based on his version of the events of October 23, 2021. (FAP ¶
16.) On December 2, 2021, respondent notified petitioner of Jane’s allegations
and indicated that the Office of Student Concerns would investigate Jane’s
claims. (FAP ¶ 12.)
Petitioner was interviewed on December 10, 2021,
January 5, 2022, and February 7, 2022. (FAP ¶ 17.) On February 22, 2022,
petitioner was provided with the Investigator’s report. (FAP ¶ 22.) Petitioner
responded to the report on March 4, 2022. (FAP ¶ 22.) On May 5, 2022,
petitioner was provided a copy of the final report. (FAP ¶ 22.)
On May 12, 2022, respondent conducted a hearing.
(FAP ¶ 24.) Petitioner testified to his version of the events of October 13,
2021 and October 23, 2021. (FAP ¶ 24.)
On July 1, 2022, the hearing panel issued a report.
(FAP ¶ 25.) The hearing panel found that Jane did not violate respondent’s
sexual misconduct policy but that petitioner had engaged in non-consensual
sexual contact with Jane. (FAP ¶ 25.) Petitioner was removed from student
housing, directed to have no contact with Jane, and suspended for five
consecutive quarters. (FAP ¶ 26.)
Petitioner appealed the hearing panel’s
determination, which was denied. (FAP ¶¶ 28, 29.) Petitioner alleges that the
hearing panel ignored exculpatory evidence and inconsistencies in the evidence,
having resolved such inconsistencies in favor of Jane. (FAP ¶ 27.)
II. Procedural History
On
January 26, 2023, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate.
On March 22, 2023, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of
Administrative Mandate. On January 5, 2024, respondent filed a Verified Answer
to the First Amended Petition.
On
May 11, 2023, the Court (Hon. Mary H. Strobel) set the hearing on the writ
petition for January 30, 2024. (5/11/23 Minute Order.) Judge Strobel ordered
petitioner’s opening brief to be filed sixty days prior to the hearing date, i.e.,
December 1, 2023. Judge Stroble also
ordered that petitioner lodge the administrative record when filing
petitioner’s Reply Brief, which was due 15 days prior to the hearing on the
writ petition. (5/11/23 Minute Order.)
No opening brief was filed or served. (See Engstrom
Decl. ¶ 3; Ishikawa Decl. ¶ 5 [respondent not served with opening brief].) Nor has the administrative record been
lodged.
III. Analysis
The
petition for writ of mandate is brought pursuant to CCP § 1094.5. (FAP at 3:5,
¶¶ 38, 39; Prayer for Relief at ¶ 3.) Under CCP § 1094.5, “the party
challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the
court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the
evidence.” (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817; see
also Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 139.) “In a section 1094.5
proceeding, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a sufficient record
of the administrative proceedings; ‘otherwise the presumption of regularity
will prevail, since the burden falls on the petitioner attacking the
administrative decision to demonstrate to the trial court where the
administrative proceedings were unfair, were in excess of jurisdiction, or
showed “ ‘prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ ” (Elizabeth D. v. Zolin
(1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347, 354.)
Petitioner
also refers to CCP § 1085 in the operative petition. (FAP at 3:6, ¶¶ 6, 38.)
“There are two essential requirements to the issuance of a traditional writ of
mandate: (1) a clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the
respondent, and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right on the part of the
petitioner to the performance of that duty.” (California Assn. for Health
Services at Home v. State Dept. of Health Services (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
696, 704.) “An action in ordinary mandamus is proper where…the claim is that an
agency has failed to act as required by law.” (Id. at 705.)
An
agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties. (Evid. Code
§ 664.) “The petitioner always bears the burden of proof in a mandate
proceeding brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.” (California
Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th
1133, 1154.)
A
memorandum of points and authorities is required for a noticed motion,
including for mandamus. (See CRC 3.1113(a); Local Rule 3.231(b)
[describing noticed motion procedure for prerogative writs].) The absence of a
memorandum is an admission that the motion is not meritorious and may be
denied. (CRC 3.1113(a).) “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a
concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a
discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position
advanced.” (CRC 3.1113(b); see also Local Rule 3.231(i)(2) [opening
brief must cite to administrative record].)
Rule
of Court 3.1113 “rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing
the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s
theories”. (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.) A reviewing court “will not act as counsel for
either party to an appeal and will not assume the task of initiating and
prosecuting a search of the record for any purpose of discovering errors not
pointed out in the briefs.” (Fox v. Erickson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 740,
742.) The Court cannot evaluate arguments that are not made in the briefs and
cannot make the parties’ arguments for them. (Nelson v. Avondale HOA
(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862-63 [argument waived if not raised]; Pfeifer
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1282 [same].)
As
noted above, on May 11, 2023,
the Court (Hon. Mary H. Strobel) ordered petitioner to serve and file the
opening brief 60 days prior to the hearing date of January 30, 2024. (5/11/23
Minute Order.) Petitioner was ordered to lodge the administrative record
on the same day the reply brief was filed. (Ibid.)
No
opening brief was filed, timely or otherwise. No administrative record was
lodged, timely or otherwise. Accordingly, petitioner fails to meet his burden
to demonstrate how he was denied a fair hearing; how respondent failed to
proceed in the manner required by law; how respondent’s findings, decision, and
sanctions were not supported by the evidence; or how the sanction imposed
against petitioner was without legal justification or factual basis. (FAP ¶
38.) In addition to affirmatively
failing to meet his burden, petitioner’s failure to file an open brief
constitutes a admission the petition lacks merit. (CRC 3.1113(a).)
IV. Conclusion
The
petition is DENIED.
|
Date: January
30, 2024
|
|
|
|
HON.
CURTIS A. KIN
|
|
